BrinStar

I'm gona try to stay pretty much unbiased, but it can be REALY hard when the mud slinging starts. If you love your nintindo, do so peacefuly and don't trash the other side. Same for you XBoxers.


Heres how I see it.

"There aint enough room in this here town for the three of us..."


Lets face it folks, what we are living in right now is the Golden Years of the gaming industry. When has there EVER been 3, THREE, top of the line, multinational, billion selling, fully supported and active gaming systems compeating all at one time before?

This creates GREAT competition and market stimulation.
Capitolism at its Finest.
Good for the Consumer. Competitively dificult for the Console Companies. Supurb for the game developers.


But here is where the sun sets...



What makes this glory gaming era posible is the competition between the systems. PS2 and XBox fight for all the best games and best talent in a great big pool of posible developers. Its up to the developers to decide who to take thier games to, and for PS/XBox to say "Yes/No".
Nintindo however tries to fight its competition with a resorce monopoly of sorts. They have thier titles and thier developers and they fight to keep them away from that talent pool that the rest of the Players draw from.

Back in the Day that worked, but back in the day Nintindo only had to fight one opponent at a time. So its was ether Nintindo or it was SEGA, or PSX. So the talent was ether Nintindo or Not.

Now days its not so clean cut.
A developer no longer has to accept nintindo prices or the hope that maybe the competition will pick them up.
Now days there is price competition OUT SIDE of the Nintindo fences. A developer can market and bid his game up with out ever getting on its knees before nintindo.



As far as the Non-tindo market goes there are two general oppinions on how the situation will eventualy resolve.
1) PS2 and XBox will kill each other in a two man strangle hold. Fighting over the same market and talent will cause them to both loose sales and eventualy fall.
2) Nintindo no longer has the benifits its Talent Monopoly once held because the consumer now knows the benifits of cross platform and the developers can make a living without the massive name of nintindo. This will cause the non-homogenous nintindo to dry up and die.


The ultimate deciding factor is how will console gaming change in the futre.
In Nintindo's golden years the majority of the gaming community was children and persons under the age of 21.
Over the years the Nintindo Generation has grown up and the margin of Post Adolecent gamers to Adolecent gamers is much more competitive.
(Now I'm not saying Nintindo only caters to the younger crowd and not the older. what I am saying is this....)

Children pick a brand that brand becomes tailored to that audience.
Nintindo got its start on the pre-21yo crowd. Thats where it began. It has grown up with some of us, but at the same time it has definately devoted a sizable amount of its resorces to that target audience. While its competitors aim for the original, now older, audience.


Will Nintindo be able to be a monopoly in an open market?
Will XBox's PC framework bring PC developers over to its side of the market?
Will the PS2 massive library and devoper history be able to cary on even with two other systems in the ring?


It is my personal view that Nintindo has a disadvantige in an open market.
I also feel that Sony needs a new gimmic if its going to folow suit in 5+ years.
XBox seems to be gaining speed and seems to be the most solid of the systems. One can not criticise thier game library because they are an open market system. To criticise thier library would be to criticise the PS1,2 library, and that has already proven to be outstanding.



Long Libe the Holy Trinity.

Tamrok

Well, I personally believe that although there really hasn't been a precedent for three successful consoles to coexist, the market has expanded greatly in recent years and I think this may be the first time in which all three consoles can survive and succeed.

boobietheclown

Yeah...this is a fresh topic.

Josh H

I think the "holy trinity" will last at least through next generation.

After that, either Nintendo or MS will probably be gone (or software only in Nintendo's case).

There's a chance all three could stick around for good as well.

I personally think as long as Nintendo keep selling decent numbers of hardware (the GCN is number 2 in worldwide sell, and projections have it pulling further ahead by years end) and selling millions of copies of their first party games without paying licensing fees as they're putting them on their own system, they'll have no reason to follow sega and go third party.

MS is in third and loses a bunch of money on every console sold (they cost around $325 to make), but they have deep pockets and Gates is determined to rule the entertainment system, so I don't see them giving up. As long as they find a way to lose less money per console next generation, and move into second orremain a close third worldwide (and likely stay number 2 in the U.S.) they should be content to stick around. The success or failure of X-box Live will play a big role as well.

Sony simply rules the industry. They have the brand loyalty it takes to stay number one. The top spot is theres to lose, if they don't make any major mistakes, MS and Nintendo will never catch them. They're in a similar position to Nintendo in the SNES era. They were at the top, and it was there's to lose. And they screwed it up by alienating third parties and the media, and most of all by going with a cartridge based system.

Hopefully all three will remain for good, as the increased competition means more great games for us gamers.

I won't bother speculating on which company "will drop out first" because it's simply to early to tell. We'll just have to wait and see how Nintendo and MS fair this round and next. Only Sony's spot seems secure at the moment.

boobietheclown

Seriously Mods...!?!?!

Can we just close this as a duplicate? He could have easily have posted this in 5 other threads...

BrinStar

I tried reading the others but the console bashing was too much for me.


Thought maybe a fresh start would clear the view a bit.
Close it if its destructive. Sorry for adding to the problem.




They might be able to all stay afloat, but I think instead they'll try to compensate by releasing new systems every 3 years instead of every 5.
Too Gready.


Sony has a good strangle hold but I think XBox is stealing thier crowd slightly. MS chose a great time to release the XBox. They cought PS2 after the hype had died and they hit big before the Game Cube could get its steam up.
The otehr side of that is Game Cube is going to "Hit" after the XBox hype dies. But I think MS may know this so they are trying to get the XBox Live up in time to create compeating hype to match the Zelda, Metroid, Mario hype from GC when it finaly hits full speed.

I honestly don't know what PS2 is doing to stay up to speed.
PS3 in 2004?

Josh H

I agree, maybe this thread will stay more mature. The others were Nintendo based and basically turned into Nintendo bashing.

Josh H

New consoles any sooner that 5 years will kill my interest in gaming. Having a system that will be supported for 5 years is the main reason I'm into console gaming and avoid PC gaming.

I'm not willing to buy a new system any sooner than that, and I imagine many (most?) casual gamers (who decide consoles fates) feel the same way.

CreatureX

I also believe that the industry has grown so big that it can support three consoles....

Sony is the leader and unless they do something horribly wrong (which they won't) they will continue to remain number one.

Nintendo will always have their worlwide fanbase that will continue to purchase millions of their console games every year.

Microsoft has already shown they can bring great games (Halo), new ideas (built in HD), and great future ideas (Xbox Live) to the gaming industry. Plus they have the money to do whatever they want.

BrinStar

Thats the danger that I'm worried about as well.

I just don't see these 3 companies "playing nice" for any prolonged period fo time.

Nintindo has a system going, its name is huge.
Xbox I think is trying to bring the PC gamers over, aiming for a more mature, PC literate crowd. ("Look Look, I'm a PC for the TV, not a Video Game machine!")

I don't really know what Sony has to keep up with that other than the rumors about PS3 coming earlyer than expected.
That could do it tho.
They'd unviel a new system just in time to pick up everyone who is bored of the current systems. (the early birds) Nintindo prolly wouldn't be able to keep up with that. But if that senario did happen I think MS would make the Xbox1.5, just add the next level of PC video and processor hardware into the existing Xbox. It be down compatable and yet a new system, plus it would save Xbox the trouble of making a whole new system.

But thats only if Sony plays dirty and decides to launch a new system too close to the PS2.

Groucho

My guess is that two of the three will team up for the next generation. We know that Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo outright...but maybe they'll compromise on a partnership (Microsoft does the hardware, Nintendo the software)? Both are in good terms with Sega as well...the three could work together to bring down Sony if they really wanted.

Come on, you'd buy an XDreamCube, you know you would.

BrinStar

Thats a damn good point.

I doubt Nintindo would sell to MS, but a partnership could be feasable.


Sega helped MS alot with the XBox Internet stuff.
Prolly sold thier posible Dreamcast internet plans to MS out right.
Nintindo could be hired to make the games for "X" number of years on XBox and that would put Sony in a strangle hold.
A Microsoft wet dream.



Personaly I love having 3 systems.
My brother and I share the Xbox and Game Cube (thats how we aford 3 systems). One month I get Xbox and he gets GC, then we swap.
I'm scedualed to have GC when Mario releases. But that means I pay for Mario too. (thats how we decide who gets it for the big releases, you pay for the game, you get the system.)

Kellehair

What would Nintendo get in return for that partnership? Money? They already have money.

huh?

i'm going to write a custom application that searches DVDTalk boards and try and find what there are more of... threads about which console is better than which, or threads about star wars....

i think it would be close

BrinStar

No risk money.

Its hard to make a profit when you put out a new System.
Just about every system out there loses more money than it makes. The money is in the games.

Nintindo could make its money without the risk.
Plus they could ask for a Hojillion Dollars and the best part is MS can actualy pay them.

*Wonders how much Mario is REALLY worth*

ScandalUMD

Nintendo remains one of the key innovators in gaming. Sony has a larger base, but Nintendo continues to have a huge stable of multimillion-selling titles, and they continue to keep their quality above even the best of the competition.

Naughty Dog makes good platformers. The Spyro team makes good platformers. The Rayman team makes good platformers. Heck, Rare makes good platformers. But Mario is the last word. Period.

Nintendo's hardware design also leads the pack, especially in controllers. The N64 was the first console to have 4 controller ports. This allowed gamers to play multiplayer, and it allowed Nintendo to sell more profitable accessories.

The N64 controller was also very innovative. It featured the first analog thumbstick, and the first analog button (z). They also were the first to market force feedback on a console, with their rumble pack. Sony followed these innovations with the Dual Shock. The Gamecube controller continued to innovate, with its excellent L and R triggers, which will likely be mimicked on future Sony controllers. The Wavebird represents another watershed in controller design.

Mario will probably sell 2 million copies, and Nintendo doesn't pay licensing on top of it. Sony scraped a good chunk off of Rockstar's GTA, probably a lot more than they paid back to secure the exclusive rights to the series.

Nintendo isn't going anywhere for a while. Sony had been faltering for a very long time before they pulled out. Sega CD failed. 32X failed. Saturn failed. And the Dreamcast was a great thing, but it was too little, too late, and nobody trusted Sega anymore.

But Sega spent years in the red, and had multiple failed pieces of software. At the end, the value of their brand to consumers was so eroded that they couldn't sell a console, even a console as good as Dreamcast. Third party was their only choice.

It would take a decade of mistakes for Nintendo to be at that point, and their mistakes simply aren't big enough.

To some, their name means "Kiddie" and if they want to dominate the market again, they'll have to overcome that. But to most gamers, their name means quality, and they reap profits every year. As long as those two things continue to be true, they will be a player in the console race.

I continue to point to the Xbox as the most likely candidate to check out. Microsoft has a lot of money to lose, and the losses on Xbox don't seem to be hurting them too much, but if they don't see any money coming from this thing in the long term, they may not remain committed to it. They've already demonstrated their frustration by firing Seamus Blackley, and it's pretty clear that nobody at Microsoft expected Xbox to be where it is at this point.

This may translate into an abbreviated lifespan for Xbox. Microsoft might support Xbox for five years, but not introduce another console. Or, Microsoft might endure huge losses throughout the lifespan of the Xbox in the belief that they can build a brand around it, and compete with Sony in the next generation of consoles.

ScandalUMD

There's more money in the games when you don't pay a licensing fee. If every system lost money, nobody would put one out.

Nintendo has two businesses; Gamecube and Gameboy. They recorded record profits this year, in spite of the fact that they launched and promoted a new console. Gameboy is big, but it's not big enough to make record profits with the Gamecube in the red. My bet is that gamecube software and accessories made up much more than the losses from hardware, if, indeed, there were any.

There was some speculation that Nintendo broke even, or even profitted slightly on Gamecube hardware.

Gallant Pig

I've been thinking the same thing all along. I love Nintendo, it's a great brand. If they stopped making consoles they will still have the love, respect, and recognition to sell a lot of software. They make a killing of off Gameboy and Pokemon. They don't make a killing off of Gaming Consoles. They do make a killing selling Mario games. If you take away the game consoles, they still make a killing selling Mario games on other systems.

BrinStar

I don't like arguing about profit margins. Especialy around big business. Its easy to move numbers around and make everything look like a profit (untill the money runs out). Its a standard practice, especialy in the entertianment industry.

However I also belive Nintindo is making money.



The point I was making is Nintindo wouldn't have to pay MS to make games for MS.
MS would pay nintindo for the licese to get Mario, Zelda, Exc.
Nintindo makes the money there, not MS.



Also there was a bit in the first part of your first post that wasn't true...
The N64 controller wasn't all that revolutionary.
The Analog stick was used on PC game pads several years before the N64.

I belive one of the less popular systems had force feedback. Neo Geo or one of the Sega ones. A Black controller is all I remember. I can't prove it tho so who cares.

The L and R triggers on the game cube are from the Dreamcast controller which is almost an exact replica of a controller Microsoft (belive it or not) made for the PC about 5-7 years ago. Joystick, Analog R/Z buttons, and everything. (Which in my oppinion is why the XBox controller looks like the dreamcast one so much, its just a bigger version of the old Microsoft PC gamepad.)

And wireless controllers have been around since the Sega days.

Gallant Pig

Analogue is revolutionary? Am I the only one who owned an Atari 2600 which came with an analogue joystick?

Shawn

Hmm...this sounds familiar. Seriously, I think you should call Microsoft and explain to them that if they don't discontinue the Xbox, they'll go bankrupt. I'm sure they'll listen to you, since you can predict the future.

darkside

Was that joystick really analog? I believe it was digital. The only analog type thing I can remember were the paddles.

As far as the can three consoles survive theme of the thread. I guess the answer is yes, if its the three companies currently involved. Things were different when it was weaker companies, but these three seem to have plenty of resources. Will it be like this the next generation? Who knows. Eventually Microsoft will have to beat Sony to make it worth their involvement.

IMO, if Sony or MS really want to take Nintendo out of the mix they will have to compete with and defeat the Game Boy. That defeat more than the Game Cube could turn Nintendo into a game publisher only.

How can Microsoft or Sony defeat each other? I have no idea, obviously MS is going to need much better software in the future to compete.

I kind of hope this three way competition continues forever. It kind of sucks having to buy three consoles, but the competition really pushed the creation of better and better games and keeps prices down. Its all good for consumers.

The problem with this speculation is its only August 2002. A lot of things can happen between now and 3-4 years from now when the new consoles may be nearing release. With three companies this strong anything can happen. I think all three are doing a pretty good job to make their consoles worth owning.

BrinStar

What I'm hoping is Nintindo wont be Defeated.
I hope they keep the GameBoy trend going, but also decide to go 3rd party on someone elses system, which seems to be in nintindos best intrest on all fronts.


And this is kinda the bes time to speculate.
The hype is kind of over.
The titles have been out a while, with the exception of the nintindo flagship titles that people will buy no matter what.
Xbox has shown what it realy is all about.
PS2 has its great big Sony style library.
And everyone misses the Dreamcast.

darkside

Nintendo won't be totally defeated. Even though they only support one console they are still the number one game publisher in the world. The worst case for them would be the Sega thing were they just publish games. Nintendo will probably be around, at least as a game publisher, as long as video games are played.

Shawn

What exactly does "number one game publisher" mean? Does it mean that they sell the most games? If anyone could clarify it for me, thanks in advance.