XBox 360 launched in Japan

[Sis]

You'd rather pay the same for just 1? I think you'd be in the minority.

Now you're just making up numbers. I would think that a console releases at what the market would bear and that price cuts may be impacted by console competitors.

Are you suggesting that the Xbox 360 would cost 1200 bucks if the PS3 wasn't being released next year?

.Sis

 

[Carl B]

You'd rather pay the same for just 1? I think you'd be in the minority.

I'm actually in the same boat as Sis in terms of not being upset by the notion of a generalist 'dominant' console with other players filling niche roles. The exclusives get to me as well, not because they don't make good business sense for those companies - because of course they do - but because I would prefer to own one console to three, for space reasons alone.

As it stands now I think there's a pretty good dynamic in the video game space. Microsoft fighting to establish itself, Nintendo re-imagining itself, and Sony fighting to hang on to what they have I think will make for an interesting gen.

And since those exclusives and such do exist, well we the consumer may be 'forced' to purchase different consoles and thus sample what other companies have to offer.

 

[expletive]

I agree with this notion. I think a market actually has a natural preference for a monopoly, especially if you think in terms of formats (and if you consider the PS2 a video game format).

I'm not convinced that a monopoly is a bad thing, generation to generation. Currently--due to system exclusives--I'm forced to buy two or more consoles and research which game is the best of a multiplatform release. This hardly seems consumer friendly.

.Sis

My point is that for MS in Japan, theyve never had a monopolistic cycle. Theyve actually never even been a viable competitor. When youve got 3 companies cyclically taking a lions share of the market thats fine but we're at a point now where youve got a competitor ttrying establish even a 'niche' market in JP. My point was that to root against even moderate success by MS (or even nintendo from gen to gen) in the region was misguided.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Now you're just making up numbers. I would think that a console releases at what the market would bear and that price cuts may be impacted by console competitors.

Are you suggesting that the Xbox 360 would cost 1200 bucks if the PS3 wasn't being released next year?

.Sis

So only the ps3 counts as competition? PS2, Xbox and GC are still available with a large library of titles, so they are still competition.

Most people would not benefit from a monopoly, most people do not buy 3 consoles, they buy the one that best suits their needs. Also you appear to be assuming that because there would only be one console that all the titles would be available for the one monopoly console. I doubt that would be true. The monopoly would be able to dictate which titles got released to best maximize profit, this may not necessarily be the title you prefer.

Each of xbox, ps2 and gamecube consoles have advantages, those don't necessarily merge into a monopoly. Would MS have released eye toy? Would Sony have released Live? Monopoly doesn't promote innovation.

<edit> I should say that if you are talking about some console utopia where a benevolent corporation whose only interest is making sure that innovation, variety and cost are in the best interest of the consumer, thats fine. But that isn't what a monopoly would produce.

 

[<nu>faust]

videogame market is one of the biggest and strategically most important parts of the entertainment sector,you can't simplify the whole of the industry to a format and assume that a monopoly might benefit the customers at the end, competiton among big companies is good business for software developers, retailers and customers. Do you really think without the money&effort ms and nintendo is pouring to the industry you'd see this sector growing to be $7 billion worth , do you really think sony would only care about their customers needs if it had all the power and control over ?

 

[mckmas8808]

videogame market is one of the biggest and strategically most important parts of the entertainment sector,you can't simplify the whole of the industry to a format and assume that a monopoly might benefit the customers at the end, competiton among big companies is good business for software developers, retailers and customers. Do you really think without the money&effort ms and nintendo is pouring to the industry you'd see this sector growing to be $7 billion worth , do you really think sony would only care about their customers needs if it had all the power and control over ?

Who's saying that here? I didn't think anybody actually thought what you said is true. Did they?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Currently--due to system exclusives--I'm forced to buy two or more consoles and research which game is the best of a multiplatform release. This hardly seems consumer friendly.

.Sis

That's a good point but it ignores a couple huge factors IMO.

First of all, with less companies competing, there is less of a need to spend alot of money on good exclusives because you have no competition to come steal away your installed base. So, we actually would see less quality 1st party titles. 1st party titles tended to be the best games on the respective platforms every generation.

So, less competition = less big bidget 1st party productions.

Second point, if there were no serious competition the hardware would not nearly as advanced, therefore all games across all genres would be worse.

I'm a firm believer that competition is the best thing ever for console gaming, it drives hardware races, it drives big-budget expeditures on 1st party titles intended to capture marketshare, money that might not be spent otherwise.

People who wish for a Sony monopoly in japan are not thinking it through. If MS captures 30% of japan, sony's response will be to dramatically increase their production of high quality 1st party RPG's. At the same time, it will drive competition between RPG developers as they fight over consumers, and try and capture eachothers installed base.

Meanwhile, the consuemr with botha PS3 and 360 sits back, and enjoys the stream of big-budget quality games on ridiculously powerful hardware (for the money)

So, to sum it up, although you may need to spend some extra money on hardware to experience all the games available, you will also get to experience more highquality games than you would with a 1console monopoly in any given reagion.

 

[Sis]

That's a good point but it ignores a couple huge factors IMO.

First of all, with less companies competing, there is less of a need to spend alot of money on good exclusives because you have no competition to come steal away your installed base. So, we actually would see less quality 1st party titles. 1st party titles tended to be the best games on the respective platforms every generation.

So, less competition = less big bidget 1st party productions.

Second point, if there were no serious competition the hardware would not nearly as advanced, therefore all games across all genres would be worse.

I'm a firm believer that competition is the best thing ever for console gaming, it drives hardware races, it drives big-budget expeditures on 1st party titles intended to capture marketshare, money that might not be spent otherwise.

People who wish for a Sony monopoly in japan are not thinking it through. If MS captures 30% of japan, sony's response will be to dramatically increase their production of high quality 1st party RPG's. At the same time, it will drive competition between RPG developers as they fight over consumers, and try and capture eachothers installed base.

Meanwhile, the consuemr with botha PS3 and 360 sits back, and enjoys the stream of big-budget quality games on ridiculously powerful hardware (for the money)

So, to sum it up, although you may need to spend some extra money on hardware to experience all the games available, you will also get to experience more highquality games than you would with a 1console monopoly in any given reagion.

It's a fair point, though to go way back, who was Nintendo's main competition for the NES? I know Sega came along eventually, but I thought there were a few years where the NES was the only show in town.

Either way, I agree competition is good in general, but I do believe there is a natural consumer trend towards a monopoly and that a monopoly does have certain positive effects for the consumer, in regards to the format.

However, in terms of a console, I have very little historical evidence off-hand to support this, so it's purely my gut feel.

.Sis

 

[Bobbler]

Now that I think about it a bit, I completely agree with you, Sis. This seems to be one of the only markets (probably has to do with the uniqueness of the console market and how it all works -- exclusives, consoles sold at loss, etc) where a "monopoly" doesn't seem that bad -- some would argue that Sony pretty much had a monopoly in Japan, but Japan got the most games out of anyone on the PS2. A console having a monopoly is beneficial just like having a single format for next gen movies is beneficial -- Nobody wants a blu-ray vs Hd-dvd fight that doesn't end for years, that isn't beneficial to the end users. Consoles as a format work best when there is only one... it's the software makers that compete with each other and that's where we get the fantastic stuff, not when they have to go multiplatform or learn a bunch of different consoles to program for, etc, etc. Seeing as our world is rather capitalistic I don't see this happening any time soon though (the chance died with 3D0), since the second a company saw it had a chance it would jump right in the market (if there was only 1 player)... so having competition on the console front, with the way consoles are done, is the only way it'll go (for not). We could have something like the 3DO which was an open platform (I believe) and have companies make games for it and several different hardware companies could make it (causing competition in price on the hardware front) -- that would actually be the most ideal, then the hardware makers don't have control over the format to charge absurd licensing fees. Maybe a consortium (like the size of dvd consortium) could be in charge and sort of police itself so the fees aren't too absurd. The more I think about it one platform, if done right, would be really the best... because in actuality it is really no different than any other content medium (dvd, blu-ray, hd-dvd), it's just a bit more complex... PS3 is a format, Xbox360 is a format, Revolution is a format.

Nobody here can say that developers wouldn't love 1 platform -- developers would need to make 1 copy and would be able to reach millions upon millions. That is truly optimal for everyone -- anyone saying that we'd automatically be paying a lot more for the console is being a bit afraid (as licensing fees would make up for them way faster, being as there is only one platform for games to come out on). As long as it was controlled (this is why it would probably have to be an open platform, or one with an absurdly large amount of companies behind it so everyone agrees), it would be very much the best for everyone (e.g. a company that isn't insane and wouldn't charge developers out the ass for licensing fees, etc).

I always thought it would be nice if Sony, Nintendo, and MS got together and made a single console -- splitting the cost and sharing licensing fees from third party and they could make extra money from their personal first party games. That'd be pretty nice -- I'd pay 500-600 dollars for a console that I could play all the games on (and MS Sony and Nintendo could compete with themselves on the hardware front and offer different packages with different things on it like Panasonic and a couple other companies did with 3D0). Of course we probably wouldn't get as good a deal on the console, but we'd probably get a lot more games and see the hardware being pushed (in addition to having less hardware to buy).

 

[AlphaWolf]

I always thought it would be nice if Sony, Nintendo, and MS got together and made a single console -- splitting the cost and sharing licensing fees from third party and they could make extra money from their personal first party games. That'd be pretty nice -- I'd pay 500-600 dollars for a console that I could play all the games on (and MS Sony and Nintendo could compete with themselves on the hardware front and offer different packages with different things on it like Panasonic and a couple other companies did with 3D0). Of course we probably wouldn't get as good a deal on the console, but we'd probably get a lot more games and see the hardware being pushed (in addition to having less hardware to buy).

That console is called the PC. If you don't have fixed hardware you don't have a 'console'.

 

[dubyateeeff]

It's a fair point, though to go way back, who was Nintendo's main competition for the NES? I know Sega came along eventually, but I thought there were a few years where the NES was the only show in town.

IIRC there were other consoles but Nintendo said we need to make the most powerful console to make the best games. Along came NES. With that much power they quickly came to dominate the console market and of course good titles didnt hurt either.

Yeah, Master System was the closest thing to a competition for NES.

EDIT: I think one of those consoles Nintendo dominated over was an Atari console.

EDIT2: In some places, just like Nintendo and Playstation became synonumous with consoles and games Atari had the same role once.

 

[Bobbler]

That console is called the PC. If you don't have fixed hardware you don't have a 'console'.

You seem to have missed what I was talking about. It would be a console, but it would be a joint project... so we'd get 1 console that plays all the games instead of 3 that play some of the games. Not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it wouldn't be fixed hardware -- similar to the 3D0 there would be multiple manufacturers making the same hardware (causing pricing competition between them, to some extent).

 

[dubyateeeff]

My god, competition is good. What if Nintendo was the only game in town? We would have to stick cartridges for far longer. With a mini-DVD format that is barely larger than a CD. Crappy online support.

Sony has instead given us larger formats (CD, DVD, BR).

MS gave us online gaming.

If there was monopoly in this market the dominating company wouldnt release consoles as often as 5 years. NES stuck around forever. PS2 is still selling well and would continue to sell well if the next-gen wasnt being released now (and if they were the only game in town).

Heck, Nintendo would still shove kiddy games down our throats. Any violent games would be censored from blood and gore and sex because that would tarnish Nintendos image.

If it wasnt for competition we would still be stuck with SEGA.

Joking chill...

While we see a format war as bad, without any format war the introduction of a new format would go slower and the new format doesnt necessarily have to be that much better.

And eventually we would be stuck with a bloated system that supports hardware BC. Where each iteration isnt so much faster that software emulation is viable (*cough* Gameboy *cough*)

 

[scooby_dooby]

You seem to have missed what I was talking about. It would be a console, but it would be a joint project... so we'd get 1 console that plays all the games instead of 3 that play some of the games. Not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it wouldn't be fixed hardware -- similar to the 3D0 there would be multiple manufacturers making the same hardware (causing pricing competition between them, to some extent).

That console would be pathetic in performance compared to what you would get with the 3 copanies competing.

Instead of selling at a loss, they would get together and come up with the cheapest possible solution. Doesn't sound to great to me.

 

[expletive]

You seem to have missed what I was talking about. It would be a console, but it would be a joint project... so we'd get 1 console that plays all the games instead of 3 that play some of the games. Not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it wouldn't be fixed hardware -- similar to the 3D0 there would be multiple manufacturers making the same hardware (causing pricing competition between them, to some extent).

I think the problem here is these consoles have become partly pawns in a much larger corporate strategy. In the case of Sony and MS, those strategies are geared towards their own control of home entertainment. Nice idea but i still think we're better off with them at each others throats than sharing a milkshake.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You seem to have missed what I was talking about. It would be a console, but it would be a joint project... so we'd get 1 console that plays all the games instead of 3 that play some of the games. Not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it wouldn't be fixed hardware -- similar to the 3D0 there would be multiple manufacturers making the same hardware (causing pricing competition between them, to some extent).

The part where you suggested that different companies could compete with different things on it was probably where you lost me.

 

[Bobbler]

The part where you suggested that different companies could compete with different things on it was probably where you lost me.

Ah, I meant they'd offer different packages and "extra" junk -- one console might offer some media center extender type stuff and another might offer blu-ray... but they'd all play the same games. By the end of it I couldn't remember what I even said, so if it wasn't coherent that's why.

I think the problem here is these consoles have become partly pawns in a much larger corporate strategy. In the case of Sony and MS, those strategies are geared towards their own control of home entertainment. Nice idea but i still think we're better off with them at each others throats than sharing a milkshake.

I know, it's a pipedream -- but I think there is some merit to considering consoles as a format instead of what it is today (which isn't really all that beneficial to the consumer overall, even with good competition). But for now it works well and I'm in no hurry to change, but it would be a neat concept -- Trip Hawkins seems to be a bit ahead of his time in the game industry... very smart man and probably a bit too idealistic.

That console would be pathetic in performance compared to what you would get with the 3 copanies competing.

Instead of selling at a loss, they would get together and come up with the cheapest [possible solution. Doesn't sound to great to me.

I wouldn't say it would be pathetic, there are ways around these kind of things when multiple companies work together and they can gaurantee a "monopoly" (they can increase licensing fees). I think it would be a no frills game system initially (until they can profit from it then you'd see a company come out with a version with extra stuff on it), like the GC was -- doesn't mean it was pathetic when it came out. I don't think we'd ever seen generations less than 5 years though and backwards compatibility would be an absolute requirement. Admit it, if companies worked on it, it would be an interesting change that isn't without it's drawbacks, but does certainly have its benefits -- possibly a much better solution in 10-15 years time (where we'd be well past dimishing returns on upgrading power and be to a point where software will be the thing that matters, so a console generation of 6-8 years won't be bad).

 

[Phil]

That console would be pathetic in performance compared to what you would get with the 3 copanies competing.

Instead of selling at a loss, they would get together and come up with the cheapest possible solution. Doesn't sound to great to me.

Eventhough Bobbler already touched on it, I'd like to add that even the company holding a monopoly has to ensure that they keep it - which basically means that they have to keep making their product better or else it would open the opportunity to other potential competitors of entering the industry with a much better product.

This is pretty akin to Nintendo's handheld "monopoly" in which Sony saw an opportunity to enter with the PSP. If Nintendo had failed to make their product better and would still be offering their handhelds with the performance of a original monochrome Gameboy, Sony would have entered way before with a better product, perhaps taking over that market as well. This hasn't happened though, because Nintendo, despite its "monopoly" upgraded their Gameboy line on a regular basis and didn't overprice their products over the top.

 

[Sis]

Eventhough Bobbler already touched on it, I'd like to add that even the company holding a monopoly has to ensure that they keep it - which basically means that they have to keep making their product better or else it would open the opportunity to other potential competitors of entering the industry with a much better product.

This is along the lines that I was thinking about as well. Avaya made the original point about "contestable" monopolies, which really made me think about the overall releationship between the different console manufacturers. I then realized it isn't the in-generation competetion--Xbox, GC, PS2, DC--that gives the consumer benefit, but it's the entry of a new console at the edges of the generation that drive the innovation. Within a generation a console doesn't change at all, and all research costs are being applied to the next console.

There seem to be, however, a ton of small micro-attributes that make this really difficult to fully study. For instance, what effect does Sony's backwards compatibility have on a consumer's desire/ability to switch consoles? If one console dominates and locks up all the third party development, how does a new entry garner development support, enough to pull in other consumers? What effect does console manufacturer license approval have in terms of pulling in or driving away third party developers?

So I do think in-generation competition is bad for the consumer, in the end (other than price cuts coming more quickly), but it's almost a necessity in order to deliver into the next console generation (eg, what Xbox was to Xbox 360). On the other hand, the first Playstation is a perfect example that an outsider can contest dominant players from the very start.

.Sis

 

[scooby_dooby]

The thing is if there was a consolidated group making hardware the could make much bigger profits then they are now off of the hardware. And would have almost no incentive to push the envelope.

Instead of selling consoles at a loss for 1 or 2 years, and providing the most powerful GPU's on the market at manufacturing cost, we would get something that cost $80 to make, and retailed for $200, and they would all cash in, it would be far cry from the awesome deals we get today.