Sign of PS4 development?

[temesgen]

It depends on many factors if it's a disadavantage to launch late but this time for Sony it was clearly a disadvantage. Don't you think the picture would be much different if instead of Sony, Ms would have launched a year late ? And Sony knows that too - their orginal plan was to launch early 2006, a few months after Ms. And it's not an accident that Nintendo launched at the exact same time as Sony.

You say Sony was disadvantaged with way too much certainty for me, what if Sony had launched with MS and incurred similar hardware issues? What would that have done to Sony as a company? Would it have helped Blu Ray? Perhaps but what would a billion dollar loss due to fixing faulty hardware done to the company? There are variety of factors that go into a launch and I hope that anyone can see from the data I provided that launch dates really don't correlate with the installed based. And even installed base is the wrong thing to measure, what we should really be looking at is profit for each respective company for these periods of time.

With that said the difference between 2nd and 3rd place this generation is ~3M world wide so I think some of you are clearly overstating the difference in installed base between Sony and MS and the factors involved with how this generation has progressed so far. Further given Sony's interest in promoting Blu Ray, the issues with software development on PS3 and the cost of the technology I am not convinced they should have launched earlier than they did. MS clearly was able to gain market share in the short run without competition from Sony and Nintendo but again longer term it hasn't affected the installed base as much as some wish to imply. And when you factor the hardware reliability issues into it, launching first created some issues for MS too which should be factored into the evaluating the decision. Simply saying Sony wants to launch first or earlier than MS doesn't really add anything of value or accuracy to the conversation - as you can clearly see launching first doesn't guarantee success. You are entitled to feel that way but it is purely speculation.

The bottom line is that at the end of the day these companies are charged with generating profits for investors and superficial analysis that concludes first = x is wrong headed and I am certain that the big 3 don't view it that way. We do a lot of armchair quarterbacking which is fine but if we are going to speculate about a trend it makes sense to me to look a little deeper than one generation which isn't even finished yet to conclude how smart one company is and how dumb the other was.

 

[AmFreak]

You say Sony was disadvantaged with way too much certainty for me, what if Sony had launched with MS and incurred similar hardware issues? What would that have done to Sony as a company? Would it have helped Blu Ray? Perhaps but what would a billion dollar loss due to fixing faulty hardware done to the company?

That's just pure speculation - what's the foundation of such an assumption ?
Such faulty hardware is unparalleled in the console history.

There are variety of factors that go into a launch and I hope that anyone can see from the data I provided that launch dates really don't correlate with the installed based. And even installed base is the wrong thing to measure, what we should really be looking at is profit for each respective company for these periods of time.

Obviously, launch first = win is bogus. As i said - there are a lot of factors.

MS clearly was able to gain market share in the short run without competition from Sony and Nintendo but again longer term it hasn't affected the installed base as much as some wish to imply.

So you agree that it has affected / hurted their install base..

And when you factor the hardware reliability issues into it, launching first created some issues for MS too which should be factored into the evaluating the decision. Simply saying Sony wants to launch first or earlier than MS doesn't really add anything of value or accuracy to the conversation - as you can clearly see launching first doesn't guarantee success. You are entitled to feel that way but it is purely speculation.

The hardware isn't faulty cause they launched first, it is faulty cause they didn't invest enough time / money.

 

[TheChefO]

It's foolish to assume relative launch time-frame has no affect on console sales.

There are many other factors which contribute to success/failure of a console, but launch time-frame is indeed one of them.

- Console sales base which is formed while waiting for others to launch.

- Capture early demand for new hardware

- Capture early developer support

- Multi-platform software designed for your hardware first and foremost

- Potential increased dev support expanding exclusivity to multi-platform or potentially gain exclusives



Many of these are variables which are dependent on other aspects of a console for them to be fruitful, but if the parent company has the resources to provide solid developer tools, produce a competitive console design, form quality developer relationships, and deliver on price, and availability, then they have a good shot at capitalizing on the first mover advantage.

The other important aspect is the background of the company and where they are coming from within the console realm.


None of the big three will want to rush out the door to produce a new console asap, but none of the big three will want to be far away from their competition launches either.



FTR, I see Nintendo launching first or simultaneously with one of the other big three. Nintendo doesn't have the burden of trying to make up for the losses of their launch and they have the most to gain WRT graphics capability.

 

[temesgen]

That's just pure speculation - what's the foundation of such an assumption ?
Such faulty hardware is unparalleled in the console history.

My point here is that you (not you personally) can't hold all the other variables constant and say Sony should have launched sooner. The specific examples I listed are placeholders - I could have mentioned the blue laser diode which at the time had extremely poor yields. Again the purpose was simply to point out that launching earlier would have had consequences for Sony. Again the point was simply that all these variables (chip size, blue ray diodes, software development tools, etc) would need to evaluated to see what the impact would be.

Obviously, launch first = win is bogus. As i said - there are a lot of factors.



So you agree that it has affected / hurted their install base...

No - we don't agree. In the short run I think it hurt Sony's installed base but longer term 2nd and 3rd are not far off in terms of installed base. Overall the impact has been negligible. Put it another way was Nintendo slowed down because they didn't launch sooner?

The hardware isn't faulty cause they launched first, it is faulty cause they didn't invest enough time / money.

It is generally pretty accepted that the yields on chips from both Sony and MS were not good initially. Further the consoles ran extremely hot - when they moved to 65NM fabs the heat issue became much more manageable. There has been some debate about how supply constrained MS and Sony were at the time too which again suggest that the technology wasn't quite ready in 2005 or 2006 for that matter.

 

[AmFreak]

My point here is that you (not you personally) can't hold all the other variables constant and say Sony should have launched sooner. The specific examples I listed are placeholders - I could have mentioned the blue laser diode which at the time had extremely poor yields. Again the purpose was simply to point out that launching earlier would have had consequences for Sony. Again the point was simply that all these variables (chip size, blue ray diodes, software development tools, etc) would need to evaluated to see what the impact would be.

There seems to be a missunderstanding here - I didn't mean they should have launched earlier with the same hardware - that wasn't possible cause of the missing laser diodes. What i meant is that this was a clear disadvantage for them and if they could they would have avoided it.

No - we don't agree. In the short run I think it hurt Sony's installed base but longer term 2nd and 3rd are not far off in terms of installed base. Overall the impact has been negligible. Put it another way was Nintendo slowed down because they didn't launch sooner?

If u argue on the basis of the first quoting (chip size, blue ray diodes, software development tools, etc) then there's no discussion here cause it was simply impossible to launch with this hardware a year earlier. That's the reason they launched so late.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

There has been some debate about how supply constrained MS and Sony were at the time too which again suggest that the technology wasn't quite ready in 2005 or 2006 for that matter.

That is somewhat ironic since the Wii was the only one where shortages played any major role worth talking about during launch and after. Also 360 and PS3 certainly didn't show shortages similar to say PS2 back in the day.

Launching first matters, but it also matters a lot who is the one that launches. Cute that you brought up consoles like Jaguar and 3DO or even Dreamcast. You think X360 would lead PS3 3-5mil now, if you switch their release dates?

 

[ShadowRunner]

There is more to it than simply releasing first, for instance if a new console was released this year it would probably be a bad idea even if it does get a 2 year headstart on the competition IMO it is more important not to launch late, rather than just to be first.

 

[temesgen]

That is somewhat ironic since the Wii was the only one where shortages played any major role worth talking about during launch and after. Also 360 and PS3 certainly didn't show shortages similar to say PS2 back in the day.

Launching first matters, but it also matters a lot who is the one that launches. Cute that you brought up consoles like Jaguar and 3DO or even Dreamcast. You think X360 would lead PS3 3-5mil now, if you switch their release dates?

Maybe a better way to put this is say which console generation was decided by launching first?

For the record I brought up the last few generations entirely which included PS2, PS1, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. The facts suggest that launching first doesn't guarantee success but since you want to debate that rather that state a conclusion show some data which validates your assumption that launching first matters.

Finally for the record the 360 was supply constrained in US thru the Christmas holiday and into the spring - I can't comment on other markets not that it matters - launching first hasn't made much of a difference this generation or any other as best I can tell.

 

[AmFreak]

Maybe a better way to put this is say which console generation was decided by launching first?

For the record I brought up the last few generations entirely which included PS2, PS1, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. The facts suggest that launching first doesn't guarantee success but since you want to debate that rather that state a conclusion show some data which validates your assumption that launching first matters.

He never said that launching first guarantees success ...
He said:

Launching first matters, but it also matters a lot who is the one that launches.

It's a difference if your enemy is a near dead Atari or Sega or one with near endless ressources like Microsoft.

launching first hasn't made much of a difference this generation or any other as best I can tell.

You seem to back this statement by saying PS3 and 360 aren't far off in terms of installed base. But you don't know how the installed base would look if the launch dates had been switched. To launch first had huge benefits for Ms. For an entire year, everyone who was tired of the old console generation had only one choice - 360. They could easily build an exclsuvie game library, cause for one year every game was more or less an exclusive. Cause they were first everyone used their tools, meaning 360 was always the lead plattform what resulted in really bad ports for the PS3. They also could build an online community - it would have been much harder for them to justify paying for online, if there had been a ps3 with free online one year earlier.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Maybe a better way to put this is say which console generation was decided by launching first?

Hardly nothing ever get's decided by one single thing. Your argument is similar to saying that long reach doesn't help in boxing, because Mike Tyson was a champ. It helps, but it's not the only deciding factor. Just like launching a console. If I launch a console first, it'll probably doesn't do so well

For the record I brought up the last few generations entirely which included PS2, PS1, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. The facts suggest that launching first doesn't guarantee success but since you want to debate that rather that state a conclusion show some data which validates your assumption that launching first matters.

3DO, Jaguar or Dreamcast didn't really matter. They never had a chance. Launching first doesn't create miracles, it just helps. Others have already pointed out some valid benefits that you get when you launch first.

Finally for the record the 360 was supply constrained in US thru the Christmas holiday and into the spring - I can't comment on other markets not that it matters - launching first hasn't made much of a difference this generation or any other as best I can tell.

360 shortages weren't that major, certainly nothing out of the ordinary for a new console. I don't remember it going for a high premium in ebay for example. Atleast not for long.

Xbox 1 launched one year later than PS2. 360 launched year earlier than PS3, do a comparison. If nothing else, that should equal your proof...

 

[temesgen]

He never said that launching first guarantees success ...
He said:


It's a difference if your enemy is a near dead Atari or Sega or one with near endless ressources like Microsoft.



You seem to back this statement by saying PS3 and 360 aren't far off in terms of installed base. But you don't know how the installed base would look if the launch dates had been switched. To launch first had huge benefits for Ms. For an entire year, everyone who was tired of the old console generation had only one choice - 360. They could easily build an exclsuvie game library, cause for one year every game was more or less an exclusive. Cause they were first everyone used their tools, meaning 360 was always the lead plattform what resulted in really bad ports for the PS3. They also could build an online community - it would have been much harder for them to justify paying for online, if there had been a ps3 with free online one year earlier.

I agree - we don't know what the numbers would be if Sony and MS had swapped release dates this time but we also most likely wouldn't be comparing a PS3 with Blu Ray at 600 dollars either which I think we already hashed out. Certainly if Sony had launched a PS3 with a DVD drive at a lower price point we would be looking at different situation. But would Blu Ray have won the format war? Was it in Sony's best interest to leverage the PS3 to help push Blu Ray and on balance what will the impact be to Sony's total revenue by those decisions? With that said if MS had launched in 2006 they still would have launched with Halo coming out nearly at the same time which would have driven their sales regardless and I personally think they would have charged for Live because the service is something people appear to see the value in paying for.

Dr Evil seems to be suggesting that I am being dis-ingenious by posting Dreamcast, Jaguar sales numbers but the reality is I'm simply put the data out there for reference - the facts are that the launching first appears not to matter so much regardless of who launched and what their resources might be. The 4th generation Sega had more powerful console in the previous generation (Master system) and launched 2 years earlier than Nintendo but the Genesis still got beat by SNES. Sega was a resourceful company at the time...

 

[AmFreak]

The 4th generation Sega had more powerful console in the previous generation (Master system) and launched 2 years earlier than Nintendo but the Genesis still got beat by SNES. Sega was a resourceful company at the time...

You don't seem to undestand that nobody said launch first = win. What we are saying is that it can help tremendous and yes i also think launching the Genesis before the SNES helped Sega a lot.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Dr Evil seems to be suggesting that I am being dis-ingenious by posting Dreamcast, Jaguar sales numbers but the reality is I'm simply put the data out there for reference - the facts are that the launching first appears not to matter so much regardless of who launched and what their resources might be. The 4th generation Sega had more powerful console in the previous generation (Master system) and launched 2 years earlier than Nintendo but the Genesis still got beat by SNES. Sega was a resourceful company at the time...

I'm not suggesting that you are disingenuous, merely saying that imo few of your datapoints don't really prove anything. Wasn't Genesis by far the most succesful Sega console?

 

[dobwal]

The 4th generation Sega had more powerful console in the previous generation (Master system) and launched 2 years earlier than Nintendo but the Genesis still got beat by SNES. Sega was a resourceful company at the time...

Imagine if Genesis dropped two year after Nintendo. Launching first doesn't gaurantee success but it does provide a better chance of success and helps facillitate more sales than would dropping at the same time of after a console that would ultimately be proven more popular.

The PS1 benefited from being released early than the N64, while the PS2 benefited from an early release over the Xbox and GC. If the PS2 effectively killed the DC sales, the DC would have been stillborned/DOA if it had released at the same time of the PS2.

Success not seen by early release is not indicative that early release doesn't matter but that early release by itself can't overcome shoddy products, limited investment capital, unrealistic prices offerings and/or poor marketing efforts.

 

[-tkf-]

I agree - we don't know what the numbers would be if Sony and MS had swapped release dates this time but we also most likely wouldn't be comparing a PS3 with Blu Ray at 600 dollars either which I think we already hashed out. Certainly if Sony had launched a PS3 with a DVD drive at a lower price point we would be looking at different situation. But would Blu Ray have won the format war? Was it in Sony's best interest to leverage the PS3 to help push Blu Ray and on balance what will the impact be to Sony's total revenue by those decisions? With that said if MS had launched in 2006 they still would have launched with Halo coming out nearly at the same time which would have driven their sales regardless and I personally think they would have charged for Live because the service is something people appear to see the value in paying for.

Dr Evil seems to be suggesting that I am being dis-ingenious by posting Dreamcast, Jaguar sales numbers but the reality is I'm simply put the data out there for reference - the facts are that the launching first appears not to matter so much regardless of who launched and what their resources might be. The 4th generation Sega had more powerful console in the previous generation (Master system) and launched 2 years earlier than Nintendo but the Genesis still got beat by SNES. Sega was a resourceful company at the time...

Blu-Ray was a part of the PS3 plan for a long time, what we have discussed here at lenght and repeatitly is the role in the launch and price. The PS3 price was not all down to the Blu-Ray, the launch date may have been delayed because of the menufactoring problems, but the quality of the development tools and the launch games did seem to indicate something else. The HDMI port was almost done as a "draft" specification.

If Sony should have switched, it might have been possible to do it "fast an easy" on the hardware side, but plenty of other stuff didn´t really seem to be ready for an earlier release.

 

[eastmen]

I have seen this stated over and over again so I decided to do some research and see if the facts support the idea that launching first correlates with the success of a console.

Here are the facts:

4th generation:

console Japan USA sales place
Sega Genesis 10/29/1988 8/14/89 30M? 2
Turbo Graphx 10/30/1987 8/1/89 10M 3
Nintendo SNES 11/21/1990 8/23/91 49M 1

5th Generation:

console Japan USA sales place
Atari Jaguar late 94 late 94 250k? 5
3DO 3/20/94 10/4/93 2M 4
Sega Saturn 11/22/94 5/11/95 9.5M 3
Sony PSX 12/3/94 9/6/95 >100M 1
Nintendo 64 6/23/96 9/29/96 ~33M 2

6th Generation:

console Japan USA sales place
Sega Dreamcast 11/27/98 9/6/99 10.6M 4
Sony PlayStation 2 3/3/00 10/26/00 >140M 1
Nintendo Gamecube 9/14/01 11/18/01 >21M 3
MS Xbox 2/22/2002 11/15/01 ~24M 2

Further I would love to see some analysis on the actual profit generated from a specific piece of hardware - Nintendo was in 3rd place in the 6th generation but how profitable were they relative to Sony and MS in the home console video game space as an example. Eastmen might think that being in 3rd place is a problem but am not sure that any of the big 3 view things the same way.

I think Nintendo has suggested a couple of times that they won't release hardware unless there are specific advances in technology which will translate into better game play opportunities - when I look at this data I tend to agree with that. And for the record the gap between 2 and 3rd this generation is a couple million consoles with the most successful launching at nearly the same time as the 3rd place console did. Launching first might have resulted in sales for MS this generation but how much of that billion dollars that was allocated to faulty hardware was due to the rush? I think the big 3 all look at a variety of factors when they decide to release hardware - the idea that you need to launch first to be more successful is myopic and more than likely isn't accurate either.

you'll have to excuse me as I was on vacation and forgot about the posts.

Anyway your right that going first doesn't mean its a sure fire sucess.

However I think your missing alot of important information. Look up the stats of the sega master system i sold 13m world wide vs 60m nes systems. What did Sega gain by launching the genesis before nintendo launched a new system ? They almost trippled world wide sales while nintendo sold 11m fewer systems.

Look at ms , they went from 24m xbox's sold to having already pushed 40m xbox 360s by launching first.


There is a ton more data that goes into it than just launching first of course. The company and product has to be sound. Look at sony. They walked after sega made a ton of mistakes (sega cd , 32x) and was launching a flawed system. Nintendo was over a year late to te party after that letting the psx prey on the weaker saturn and take the lead. Sony was able to again launch before nintendo/ms (we don't count sega as they were basicly bankrupt at the time tho the dreamcast was an amazing system) and the ps2 sold better than the psx.

What happened when sony went after MS ? it kicked them to third place.

Now I'm not saying the only thing that put them n third place was launching late. There were alot of problems like a very expensive system , lack of software , the wii having the buzz. However they certianly allowed ms to get out there and get some big games that attracted consumers.

It never hurts to be first if you have all your ducks in a row. If sony and ms are going for the same portion of the casual market again , whoever gets out first will have an advantage.


let me paint you a picture. Its Nov 2012 and COD is coming out. You can play it at sub 720p on the ps3 and xbox 360. But MS has the xbox next out and COD is at 1080p with special maps and more multiplayer ad of course its running on a 2012 $300-$400 console with brand new hardware so it will look amazing.

What do you think will happen ? Do you think people are going to say oh I will wait for the ps4 or will they all be clamoring for the xbox next . I think its a key point everyone misses. Its much easier to make hype stick when there is nothing else there to take it away. But its much harder to come out and steal the hype from an existing product.