QUOTE(Kira Yamoto @ Sep 6 2006, 01:03 PM)
and nowhere in these posts have a game been mentioned as a possible leverage to buy the console regardless of its politics.
About the PS history. PS1 won because of it's games library. PS1 offered a better games library than 64 did (which was due to the cartridge format) In the end, it wasn't due to the media formats, or graphics, it was because Sony had the better games.
PS2 won b/c largely in part had to do with their installed base like you said, but not entirely that. Sony and its 3rd parties delivered us top notch quality games to this day, and are continuing to do so until PS3 comes out. Again it comes back to the games, and that's why it won.
You're right about the games... but I think you have to take a step back and ask why the Playstation 1 had the better games library.
<history lesson>
Nintendo was the dominant force though the 8 bit days, if you didn't own an NES you were some kind of looser. Sega stepped it up with the Genesis and made owning their console cool, by the time the SNES came out Sega and Nintendo had fairly equal mind share and install bases and a good distribution of 3rd party support.
Sony worked with Both Sega and Nintendo on CD based consoles and when both of them decided to pull out Sony decided to take what they had and make their own console. Sega decided to phase into the next generation through hardware add-ons hence the Sega CD and the 32X but these never caught on and soured a lot of companies who spent a lot of money developing games for them with hardly any return. This boosted SNES sales for Nintendo and they were pushed clearly into the #1 spot, at this point they began heavily bullying 3rd parties, jacking up licensing costs and forcing them into exclusivity contracts.
The Playstation started showing on the horizon, Sega getting worried that their system would show up too late and without enough competing power jacked up the 3D processing side of the Saturn and launched early despite the fact that there weren't any games ready. it launched with nothing more then Virtual Fighter available for the first few weeks, not only that but since they launched early with more hardware the console was an unheard of $400 at the time.
Do in part to their sour relationship with Sony and do in part to their top of the food-chain attitude Nintendo decided to use cartridges instead of CDs and delayed their launch anticipating that since they were #1 (and had been the previous two generations) people would wait for their system, they didn't see Sega or Sony as a threat.
The bone headed media move on Nintendo's part combined with their previous bullying of 3rd parties drove 3rd party developers away from their console, Sega's weak results with add-on devices followed by one of the worst console launches in history, due to it's 1 available game and enormous price tag drove the 3rd party developers away from them...
Sony launched their Playstation 1, at the time it was not only the easiest console to develop for (since Sega's last minute 3D addition made it more powerful but difficult to tap that power, and Nintendo's extremely limited cartridge format) but Sony was being extra nice to 3rd parties because they were trying to build their brand. With Sony's good track record for marketing they easily annihilated the Saturn and by the time Nintendo got around to launching they had sufficiently scared away all their 3rd party support and with their N64 launching later and with only 2 games (Mario 64 and PilotWings 64) they made what was possibly the 2nd worst launch in console history.
This was a very sobering experience for Nintendo, they started to play nice with developers but it was a very hard uphill battle to win back their fan base. the N64 easily had the most performance power of that generation but with cartridges that only held about 8MB it wasn't fully realized when compared to the Saturn and PS1 that could hold closer to 650MB, The N64 game price was also a factor, games cost $70 and up because of the cartridge costs, Nintendo was banking on their extra graphical power and past console track record to warrant the extra cost but most 3rd parties and gamers didn't bite. Even the $200 price tag (the lowest of the generation) didn't help their sales all that much. Their saving grace was that they were the first with an analog stick and the first with controller rumble. These little innovations kept people interested and kept the N64 from going under.
Sega Suffered the worst, flaky game sales and poor 3rd party support they left the generation early and most people thought they were done for good.
---ROUND2---
Sega decided to recoup and fix all of their mistakes, they teamed up with MS and build their console around Windows CE to make games easy to program and easy to port from windows. They debated using the DVD format for games since it was gaining popularity but decided that they wanted to be a pure gaming console and went with a proprietary GD format (Gigabyte Disc). They did this to bring down the game costs and the console costs. They supported 4 controllers utilized analog sticks and rumble and added a built in modem basically taking all of the most popular and forward thinking ideas from the last generation. To top it off and prove that they were a different company they reversed their colors, Sega who had always been Black with blue accents was now White with orange accents (complete polar opposites color wise). They started playing nice with developers and gaining minimal support but most were still overly cautious or out right scared based on their downhill track record since the SegaCD. Seeing as they had launched early the previous generation, and left early as well the Dreamcast was launched early too, it wasn't rushed but Sega having already canceled the Saturn a while back didn't have anything else to do but work on the Dreamcast.
Nintendo having launched late and still working on re-building their user base didn't have any plans to launch the Gamecube anytime soon. This helped boost the Dreamcast a bit but most developers still weren't biting, and most of the games ended up just being better looking Playstation 1 ports. This also skewed the perception of the Dreamcast as not really being a next gen platform (despite the fact that it was). After about a year the Dreamcast started picking up speed consumers and developers began to realize that it was a great platform and it broke all of it's projected sales records.
It's about this time that Sony launched the PS2. Coming off of the most popular console from the previous generation (in terms of both user base and 3rd party support) they quickly took the market. This was further boosted with wild claims that shipments of PS2s had to be guarded because they were so powerful terrorists might steal them to use as missile computers, coupled with the fact that at the last minute production problems caused Sony to cut their shipment in half the demand for the console shot through the roof. It seemed that almost overnight the Sega and the Dreamcast was driven right out of the market. Nintendo was still regrouping from the last generation and wasn't planning on launching their new console for at least another year. Sony pretty much had the market all to themselves again. With no other consoles in town Sony was able to get a lot of 3rd parties to sign exclusivity contracts. Marketing was also a big factor since they pushed the PS2 as a cheap DVD player and DVDs were starting to become very popular before the PS2 launch.
It's this launch time frenzy that got people at MS thinking that they could build a better device for the same price and without nearly as many problems with production... just use standardized PC parts... Within 6 months they had the Xbox designed and within another 6 months it was launched... basically the Xbox materialized out of thin air.
The Xbox and the Gamecube launched within 3 days of each other which was close to a year and a half after the PS2's launch (20 months later in Japan). At this point the PS2 had already won the generation, it'd be like two people starting a Marathon, one with a broken leg and the other a first timer after the shoe-in for the win was already half way down the track. MS build their base up well, they bought some good developers, they treated 3rd parties all extra nice and it helped a whole lot that PC ports were easy to do, MS basically picked up where sega had left off, but with a bankroll to make it happen. Nintendo again had a tough time but a much better time then they did with the N64. In the end MS almost caught up to Sony's lead in the US in terms of Day to day sales but no one was close to the total install base Sony had accumulated in their first year and a half without any competition.
</history>
Now we're on to the next generation...
MS took what they learned from the previous generation, spend about 4x more time developing the 360 then they did with the Xbox 1 and launched according to plan with what has been considered one of the best launch line ups in console history (in terms of how well games have sold and how many genres have been represented). one thing that MS has realized is that the games make the console and without good support from 3rd parties they don't have any chance of building their user base.
Nintendo has taken a step back, and realized what made their past consoles sell and what kept them alive and they decided to push that aspect and concentrate on a pure gaming console. This move has seemingly sparked renewed interest in Nintendo from 3rd party devs and consumers alike.
IMO Sony is in the same place Nintendo was at when they launched the N64.
-They've won the last two generations
-They've used their market dominance to bully 3rd parties into high licensing fees and exclusivity contracts
-They've gone with a more expensive media format despite what the other companies have decided to go with
-They've expressed overwhelming arrogance towards their consumers and 3rd parties alike banking on their last gen market dominance to carry them through the next gen.
-They're launching more then a year late and banking on their user base to wait for them to hit the market.
They're also making a couple of the same mistake that were made by Sega with the Saturn on that generation
-They've launching at what consumers perceive to be an overwhelmingly high price
-They've gone with last minute 3D hardware and hardware that is difficult to program for in general
However unlike like Sega they don't have a lead on the generation to build up sales before the other consoles launch to keep them afloat, and unlike the N64 they don't have a low console price nor any unique new gaming features to keep people interested (like the analog stick and rumble feedback).
Sony is forgetting everything that made them the most popular console in the first place. Honestly I don't want Sony to leave the market and I hope the PS3 does do well but it makes me scratch my head and wonder what makes them do the things they do. I don't want Sony to drop out but I do want them to suffer a little bit. I want them to suffer because doing so will sober them up and maybe snap them out of this arrogance and abuse toward their customers and 3rd parties. I don't think ANY console dominating the market is good for the gaming market console on equal grounds in terms of user base and 3rd party support is good for the market and is good for consumers. When you're on the top you get arrogant and stagnate and start putting out crap. When you're on a level ground you're competitive and it drives the market forward.
Me, I'll always root for the underdogs until the market reaches equilibrium.
Author
Topic: Euro PlayStation 3 Launch Delayed (Read 593 times)