randycat99 said:
Acert93 said:
MS has had to face 2 very hard competitors while trying to break into the market.
I'm not attacking your beliefs directly (more making a general address to all here), but I'm getting a sense of skewed perspective here in attempting to explain why XB could not be a wild success in the same way PS2 is. People luuuuv to expound upon the virtues of GC and Dreamcast- hardware and software. So how can that not be seen as tough competition for Sony to make a reprisal appearance in?
Hi
Good post. I did not take it personal
Some answers from my perspective follow.
I cannot answer for everyone else (I think I give Sony credit for the things they do, check my other posts) but I did give some reasons why I think Sony had it easier against the N64 and SS. I think they did an excellent job of nailing the PS3 product. They built insane hype and rode the wave of PS success--that is what you are supposed to do, and Sony did it well. Sony had to face tough competition this round also from MS and Nintendo, but being the market leader and having momentum
and great product perception kept the ball rolling. This made the Xbox release that much hard IMO (just my opinion, but I think a fair one).
I would note though that there are some real DIE HARD Sony fanboys here also and quite a few very active anti-MS and anti-Nintendo people here also.
They have also had to do this with an expensive system and while trying to build a quality online service that caters to broadband (a small, but quickly growing segment).
XB has been able to match any price reduction PS2 did along their lifespan. So it's not like there was a price stigma to the consumer. People also luuuuuv to point out MS's "unlimited" financial backing, so the hardware cost to MS should not have been any significant factor to market success. This is also not to say that the online scene is missing on the PS2 camp. Y may not have every single bell and whistle as X, but the bottomline is that there is online gameplay available for both.
Because of the strong PS2 market presence, just matching Sony was probably not good enough--especially considering the huge 3rd party support/backwards compatibility Sony brought to the table. Sony had a lot of perceived value (toss in the DVD player!) and was a known/reliable product with great support. For the same price MS would have to convince consumers it was the better buy.
I agree about the online play. The fact the PS3 CAN do it I think it almost good enough. I have a friend who plays Madden online with his PS2. I do not think 3 years ago, or even 2 years ago, that we could say Xbox Live was hands down the dominant online service--it was too new. Great potential, but there was still time for Sony to make a move.
So the PS2 online "check box" was valid, and even is today, even though Xbox Live is a much superior service. And we are talking about a small segment of consumers--but this segment is growing. MS has built good inroads here imo, but nothing is stopping Sony from doing the same.
I would say MS has made some mistakes, but also done some good things. One big plus being the development of strong 1st party game franchises. They have laid a foundation...
People luuuuuv to point out the launch mistakes of the PS2 (arguably lackluster 1st gen titles and a not-so-developer-friendly development suite), but when it comes to explaining why XB did not do as well as expected, it is alluded to a "perfect" PS2 launch?
These are all red herrings. The fact remains that PS2 owned the market on its merits, and XB did not.
"Lackluster 1st gen titles" and a "perfect" PS2 launch are not opposites
IMO PS2's first year of games was pretty poor, but the PS2 did well. Remember, DVD players were a hot item, as was the PS brand. You get access to all the old PS games (and $20 bargin bin games), a couple great titles, etc... and the PS2 launch was great. It still was not perfect, but it did what it needed to do. I think it is a pretty well accepted fact that the best product does not always win, or that poor products do not sell well. I am not saying this applies to the PS2 (because it does not), but there is a lot that goes into sales. Look how strong perception has affected Nintendo.
I would say the PS2 owned the market based on its merits, momentum, marketing/hype, developer support, and consumer image/security. It was a product with value and consumers recognized that.
Xbox was an unknown, with no momentum, less developer support, and shipped later. I would even go as far to say that since it is so "cool" to hate MS that they also had a negative image in some ways. "Are my games going to crash? Will I get a virus? Will it have a bloated OS? Are they serious about making games or is this a mini PC?"
I guess I look at the market as dynamic with a lot of variables. But the important thing is that Sony got consumer confidence early, maintained a popular stance as the "best place to play cool games" and never let that go. It is hard to make inroads on a market leader if they make very few mistakes (and the ones they make they compensate for very well--like the weak 1st gen titles was offset by a lot of factors like backwards compatibility, DVD player, a lot of hype of coming games, and Sony's past great support). I think it is fair to say Nintendo and MS would like to be in Sony's shoes
This duplicitous mindset seems to be continuing on wrt XB2. Regardless of how they manuever, there will be somebody who can explain it as a "good thing" or "they meant to do that". If they did show something at CES, then it would have been "proof" how glorious it will be when it finally arrives in consumer venues. If they didn't show something then they are holding their cards close to their chest and protecting against hype escalation. Essentially, they can't do any wrong as far as some are concerned here.
I dunno, I am sure there are pro-Xbox people who saw the CES non-mention as good or bad, and anti-Xbox people who saw it as good or bad. I think I explained why I thought it was good earlier--I do not think they should show their hand to early and keep the focus on games. And while I am sure there are some who would express the Xbox can do no wrong attitude, I would say most here who are positive about Xbox are not that way. I am sure if you asked most here if MS has made mistakes and they would say yes. Personally, I can look at what both Sony AND MS are doing and say "Both are doing this and this right".
Also, you must admit, there are some loud and very opinionate ANTI-MS (and anti-Nintendo) people here also. EVERY move they make they slam and blast--not a good word to express. Even more they bash others if they question a move of the market leader and treat people as if they are stupid. IMO, I sense more "Sony can do no wrong" here than anything else. It goes both ways I guess :|
It seems they are a bit short on gloom explanations (which seem to issue copiously wherever Sony does or does not do something). Maybe MS is behind on their project this time? Maybe they have encountered a hiccup in this strange new architecture? Maybe their hardware performance is not meeting up with expectations? Maybe the CG they had available for exhibition at CES was simply not compelling? Maybe ATI's GPU is not passing muster? Maybe they are having difficulty acquiring working samples of Xenon? Maybe developers are having trouble coming to grips with this new architecture design? All of these things could be "proof" of XB2's eminent doom or delay, but that could just not be in the minds of some here.
...just had to get that off my chest.
Hmmm... "XB2's eminent doom" See, if someone said that about PS3 you would have a cow
Exceptions and certain posters aside, I think most here try to grapple with what is known when forcasting (unless it is one of the fun speculate about speculation about speculation threads hehehe). e.g. When it was thought that Sony may go with a CELL based VPU there were some legit questions about how CELL would operate in such an environment. (I just picked that one at random). MS not sharing Xenon info is not a reason to forcast doom or to jump to many conclusions. MS setting a 2005 Xenon ship date and not showing playable games at E3 would be a sign of doom and gloom. See the difference?
As for your reasons above about CES, you know, any one of those (or a combination there of) is possible. But we do not know enough to lead us to that direction yet. Personally, I would be curious to know how many developers have been working on Xbox stuff and for how long. Nov 2005 is 10 months away--I would say developers would have needed to have started working on their games at least 8 months ago to have something to show at the launch. 8 months seems like a short time to have quality demos...
This is a potential doom and gloom area. The only positives I can see in this area are (1) XNA and PC ports (2) Rare must have been doing something the last couple years (3) Consoles usually have slender title selection at release and (4) if they ship in 2005 a few good games will be enough get momentum to have a slew of titles in 2006 when PS3/Revolution launch.
But as always, developer support is a KEY issue. This is an area where Sony has done great and if MS hopes to gain any marketshare in the next gen they need to continue to increase their developer support. Sony wont give up its turf easily and look to have a great product in the PS3. E3 this year should be fun, no?
