What if Apple,Samsung,Toshiba,Sega-Sammy or Intel made a game console?
- Thread starter Flux
- Start date
Any one of them would have a chance provided they were willing to put in the required effort of losing billions of dollars for a few years. I'd say Intel would have the best chance, just because they could best afford it. Although an iPod hand held might not be that big of stretch (it would probably do well just on brand recognition) if apple wanted to go there.
I dont think Sega-Sammy has the massive corporate size needed to do a console these days. The others are all very interesting, Apple is one often speculated. I think Intel would really have an inside edge because they have inside technology access by using their own products that noone else has. Especially if Larrabee is a competitive GPU.
Apple's the only real one I could trust to do something good, but that doesn't change the fact that developers and publishers are simply not going to want to support ANOTHER platform. They're already chafing at three, and would much rather have fewer of them.
I kind of expect Apple to do SOMETHING, but that's more on the portable front. iPods in general--and iPhones and iPod Touches in particular (in regards to gaming)--are already selling tons on their own right, and they could quite easily slip into the SDK some ability to make games easier and more robust than the meager assortment we've seen already. Encouraging games, offering them extremely cheap (in the $5 and MAYBE $10 range), and giving them even more convenient distribution... they could certainly start something of their own.
Depending on how it performs, they could also aim the next generation hardware upgrades to include chipsets that would be more robust in that direction.
I kind of expect Apple to do SOMETHING, but that's more on the portable front. iPods in general--and iPhones and iPod Touches in particular (in regards to gaming)--are already selling tons on their own right, and they could quite easily slip into the SDK some ability to make games easier and more robust than the meager assortment we've seen already. Encouraging games, offering them extremely cheap (in the $5 and MAYBE $10 range), and giving them even more convenient distribution... they could certainly start something of their own.
Depending on how it performs, they could also aim the next generation hardware upgrades to include chipsets that would be more robust in that direction.
archangelmorph
Veteran
There's always room for another console if it can differentiate itself and if it's marketed well enough.
With the Wii, Nintendo jumped from last place to first place despite it being dirt cheap to make, using old hardware (which wasn't even bleeding edge even first time round) and having mostly questionable third party software. Motion controlled games were an old idea, but building a platform around them wasn't something any big player had been prepared to try until the Wii.
All it takes is a good idea that can be sold well, a killer app or two and strong marketing. While getting all that together is actually very difficult, I don't think we should doubt that it can still be done.
With the Wii, Nintendo jumped from last place to first place despite it being dirt cheap to make, using old hardware (which wasn't even bleeding edge even first time round) and having mostly questionable third party software. Motion controlled games were an old idea, but building a platform around them wasn't something any big player had been prepared to try until the Wii.
All it takes is a good idea that can be sold well, a killer app or two and strong marketing. While getting all that together is actually very difficult, I don't think we should doubt that it can still be done.
Do you think even a Wii delivered by a new party would have found traction, though? Nintendo is the only player that's been around since the beginning (effectively), used to OWN the market, still had plenty of mindshare, knew to deliver their own good games first... and still the concept was considered very odd by developers, who were worried about showing large support right off the bat even through they were already well-practiced with Gamecube coding, simply because Nintendo ONLY sold as many consoles as Microsoft in the previous generation.
Do you honestly think a new player entering the market or a return by Sega (who floundered in direction, eventually drowned, and haven't been releasing top-selling games since then anyway) would be able to convince publishers OR customers who are already being stretched in three other directions? Do you think they'd be able to deliver something with Wii's style, and have Nintendo's image to carry it to term?
Even if Sega or Apple (who can certainly catch a consumer's eye) could deliver something uniquely interesting or strong, I rather doubt it could catch fire the same way, and "selling a bit" wouldn't capture enough 3rd party attention to build momentum for a platform.
It'd be a lot more feasable (and, likely, profitable) to build a "mini-platform," as it were. Guitar Hero, for instance, exploded in popularity, and did so through excellent design, fun, and its own unique controller and interface--but it did so on top of others' platforms. It's a lot easier to design an amazing GAME--or series of games--than build a platform upon which for games to rest. (Let alone get everyone else interested in your vision for it.)
Do you honestly think a new player entering the market or a return by Sega (who floundered in direction, eventually drowned, and haven't been releasing top-selling games since then anyway) would be able to convince publishers OR customers who are already being stretched in three other directions? Do you think they'd be able to deliver something with Wii's style, and have Nintendo's image to carry it to term?
Even if Sega or Apple (who can certainly catch a consumer's eye) could deliver something uniquely interesting or strong, I rather doubt it could catch fire the same way, and "selling a bit" wouldn't capture enough 3rd party attention to build momentum for a platform.
It'd be a lot more feasable (and, likely, profitable) to build a "mini-platform," as it were. Guitar Hero, for instance, exploded in popularity, and did so through excellent design, fun, and its own unique controller and interface--but it did so on top of others' platforms. It's a lot easier to design an amazing GAME--or series of games--than build a platform upon which for games to rest. (Let alone get everyone else interested in your vision for it.)
archangelmorph
Veteran
They could always do what Nokia is doing & build a "virtual gaming platform" (N-GAGE)..?
Already what I suggested Apple might be able to pull off, since they outright control a huge segment of portable devices, already have a few games floating about, are bringing out more 3rd party programmability, and can direct their whole product line in any way they please simultaneously. Apple, at least, could trojan something in, has the mindshare to attract real attention, and the tendency to do things in their own unique and interesting way.
The rest of the mobile environment seems to be too scattershot to build anything recognizable or forge out a lasting "platform" right now. Too many companies fluctuating too many designs on too many devices with too many screen sizes, input methods, battery life concerns... Even inside Nokia itself. Not to mention that retaining the "N-Gage" name to their latest endeavor attaches it to something that other developers really have no confidence in, and consumers have done little but mocked. (If they're serious, they really should have waited until a variety of products were finalized, their delivery platform solidified, and given it a new moniker.)
Nintendo has a huge software development team with decades of experience. They're worth their weight in gold, I guess.
No-one can conjure up such a staff from thin air, building a team from the ground up isn't really possible any more, they'd have to buy up a lot of studios. MS could sort of do it because back in 2000 there were many small independent teams - but almost none are left by now. Even if they'd try to aim for Wii-level hardware, they couldn't find the people to make games for it; and finding new nextgen developers is completely out of question.
Without games, no console can be successful IMHO. It's very unlikely to see any new startups, unless someone's willing to spend a few billion dollars to buy, say, EA or Sega or someone that large.
No-one can conjure up such a staff from thin air, building a team from the ground up isn't really possible any more, they'd have to buy up a lot of studios. MS could sort of do it because back in 2000 there were many small independent teams - but almost none are left by now. Even if they'd try to aim for Wii-level hardware, they couldn't find the people to make games for it; and finding new nextgen developers is completely out of question.
Without games, no console can be successful IMHO. It's very unlikely to see any new startups, unless someone's willing to spend a few billion dollars to buy, say, EA or Sega or someone that large.
EA teaming up with Intel is more likely. Or apple + intel and outsourcing lots of exclusives to an EA.
you need lots of hardware/software engineers to design the console, OS, and devkits. You need lots of game developers to make an entire launch lineup and support it or the pocket books to outsource this. You need billions in expendable money to lose until it becomes profitable.
you need lots of hardware/software engineers to design the console, OS, and devkits. You need lots of game developers to make an entire launch lineup and support it or the pocket books to outsource this. You need billions in expendable money to lose until it becomes profitable.
