jeffdsmith

If anyone honestly believes Nintendo is going to get out of the hardware buisness, I would like to somehow place a wager with you.

If you really believe this, maybe we can work something out. Cause I know I will win.

einTier

I don't think anyone is saying that Microsoft has set out to lose money. But, what they have set out to do is gain market share, and that does cost money. They have also demonstrated a will to spend whatever it takes to become the dominant player when the next generation of product rolls out. I don't think they'll be scared off when XBox doesn't make money. I don't think they'll back down until it's painfully obvious that they have failed, and that likely won't come until the next generation of consoles.

Granted, a console made by an American company hasn't been successful in many years, but the Atari 2600 had a really nice run back in the 1980's. Since then, I'd say the dominant console has been, in order: NES, SNES, PS1. In that scenario, it hasn't been that long ago that an American company dominated. I don't understand why success in the Japanese market is so vitally important to success in the American market -- especially when there's much more money to be made here than over there.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Microsoft, and I hate the way they just keep expanding. I'd love for them to get their butts handed to them, but I just don't see it happening. Microsoft is just a juggernaut. They'll keep plugging away until they get it just right enough or they'll plug away until they just outspend your resources. They will refuse to play by your rules or the rules as they have always been. I don't like it, but history shows that's the way they operate -- and history shows that they are extraordinarily successful at it.

I'm also not saying that Nintendo is going to get out of the hardware business, much of their hardware other than the GameCube is enjoying phenomonal success. However, I don't feel that the N64 was ever a big hit, it was always second fiddle to the success of the Playstation 1. While it may have made Nintendo money, I don't think anyone would call it the runaway success the NES or SNES was. I would think it would make more financial sense for Nintendo to stop trying to create next-gen, non-portable consoles, and license their games out to other platforms -- much as Sega has done now.

jeffdsmith

Japanese success is important because that's where a very large portion of the high quality games are made. With out japanese market success its hard to convince japanese support of a system that will in no way ever be on the level of saturation that the PS2 has in America. It is possible however.

Nintendo made TONS of money on the N64, not just SOME. That's important. Technically speaking Nintendo could keep the numbers they have now with GC sold hardware and still turn a profit every year. It's their buisness plan, it works. You do not need to have the number 1 console in order to make lots of money. Alss the SNES was trying to catch up with the Genesis most of it's life by the way, it was not the #1 sold console until late in the battle.

einTier

Good point about the SNES having to catch the Genesis, I had forgotten about that.

I'm not so sure about the best games coming out of Japan... I suppose it depends on what your favorite genre of game is. Of my current PS2 games, about half are Japanese, and half are American. I dare say with the exception of Gran Turismo 3, I enjoy and play the American games much more than the Japanese. When it comes to the PC, it is the rare Japanese game that catches my eye, most of the premier titles are of domestic origin. Even many of the games developed by Nintendo/Rare, though they'd probably be categorized as Japanese in orgin because the company is Japanese-based, are actually designed and developed here in the states. I don't think the Japanese market is unimportant, but I also don't think it is the deciding factor for a gaming system being popular here.

I'm not sure that Nintendo won't keep plugging away at developing consoles for the next twenty years. If they can keep making a profit, they just might. I think they could make MORE profit by licensing Mario and Pokemon games for non-Nintendo platforms. This thread is about which console will die first. In the past, the market has shown there is room for two successful systems, but not three or four. It started with the 2600 vs. Intellivison, moved to NES vs. Sega Master System, to Genesis vs. SNES, then Saturn vs. Playstation, and last Playstation versus N64. Maybe this time there is room for three, but I'm not so sure. I think Sony has a big enough head start that they will be number one or number two, but I don't think they'll be beaten all the way back to third. I hedge my bets on Microsoft, only because they are the proverbial 800-lb gorilla and they do not play to lose. Nintendo has a strong past they keep building on, but I've not seen anything that indicates that they are trying to capture new blood outside of the pre-teen demographic. Perhaps their new business will be suitable for them, being the bottom rung of the big console (not handheld console) market, and making enough money to turn profit, but not as much as Sony or Microsoft (or possibly Sega) makes, but I suspect they'll be studying Sega's strategy, and if it's successful, following it.

zero

I don't want to go off on a rant here but,....

I don't think (and I speak only for myself) any of us would be talking about a system "dying" if Sega had not become a third party developer. I think the average gamer doesnt have much inside information, nor do they choose to have any inside information on how a company like Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft choose to do business. I dont have any such knowledge so I dont pretend to know a lot when people ask me at work why the Sega stopped production on the Dreamcast. In fact a lot of people asked me the following quesiotn "Why did Dreamcast go out of business?"...Yes it hutrs me too. I know a lot of people who would preach rumor like it was gospel, spoken directly from the company itself. Rumors suck but then again sometimes its the truth. What am I getting at? Put simply it doesnt really matter which system will go under first. Each company has a lot to offer gamers the world over. I myself have many systems, each for many good reasosns. I own a Gamecube, and have plans to purchase a PS2 later this year. I get kind of irritated when people say they don't like cartoony video games. Think about that statement...how did video games start out? Thet were cartoony. Truth be told I wouldnt mind seeing a game like Max Payne come to the Gamecube, but I think what we as a gaming community fail to realize is that well the games we play, are well...games. Sometimes we look to a company and laugh at there failures, but the minute they do something great we praise them A lot of my friends were shocked when I told then I bought a Gamecube, they just as well assumed I'd go right out and get a PS2. Hell even more of them were shocked I didnt sell my Dreamcast. I feel each system I own is a piece of history. I look at my video game collection and I see history. It all boils down to one thing...Which system YOU want. Microsoft can sell all the X Boxes they want and Sony can put out the PS4 next week, Sega can release another system, and Nintendo can start making adult films these things make no difference to me. What matters to me is that when I get home after a long day I can either save Princess Peach, snipe an alien from 40 miles away, play Blitzball underwater, save Yavin from the Death Star, steal someone's car while runnning over pedestrians, or simply visit the minus world and forget about whatever was bothering me earlier. I didnt cast my vote because I think gamers everywhere have it made. Three great companies, three great systems. What more could you ask for? except more games?....well I guess a price drop here or there wouldnt hurt would it? Im not saying the rest of you who voted are wrong everyone is entitled to their opinion and I of all people would never take that right away from anyone....well maybe Trigger. I hope I didnt sound too preachy or opionated I think every single one of us made a great and valid point. Typing this has made me feel a bit nostalgic....I think I'll break out the Genesis. Talk to you all later.

Love and Peace
zero

Trigger

My memory of the console battles was a little different from yours so I looked up console dates and whatnot to see what was missing here... Here's a list I compiled from a few sources:

1972 - Magnavox Odyssey

1976 - Pong (Atari) (Launched in 1975 Christmas Season)

1976 - RCA Studio 2 & Fairchild Channel F

1977 - Atari 2600 (untouchable for 2 years)

1978 - Magnavox Odyssey 2 & Bally Pro Arcade & MB Microvision

1979 - Intellivision (Atari's first real competition)

1981 - Commodore Vic 20

1982 - Atari 5200 & Emerson Arcadia & Intellivision 2 & Vectrex

1982 - Colecovision (This system became king of the hill at the time)

1983 - Coleco Adam & Magnavox Odyssey 3 & Sega SG 1000

1985 - Commodore Amiga 1000

1985 - Nintendo Entertainment System (Actually released in 86. Took over in a way that hadn't been seen since the Atari 2600 and then some - outsold other consoles 10 to 1.)

1986 - Intellivision 3

1986 - Sega Master System (seen as the underdog, but somewhat popular)

1987 - NEC PC Engine & Atari 7800 & Atari XEG (Atari Lynx in '88)

1989 - Sega Genesis (First major 16-bit console, Genesis enjoyed a great run for quite some time.)

1989 - Turbografx 16 (arguably equal to the Genesis if not better, but never really took off for some reason - This was actually the first 16-bit system, but only the graphics were 16-bit. They later introduced a handheld version.)

1989 - Nintendo Gameboy (Inferior to Atari Lynx yet sold millions and in fact is still selling today 13 years later)

1990 - Turbo Express

1991 - Super Nintendo (Two years after Sega releases their 16-bit system, Nintendo does the same and quicky catches up in sales. The battle between Mario and Sonic raged on and Sega and Nintendo pretty much had an even fight)

1992 - Sega Game Gear (enjoyed a moderately successful run) & Philips CDI (awesome system that died almost instantly) & Sega CD (mildly successful add-on to the Genesis)

1993 - Atari Jaguar & Neo Geo & Panasonic 3DO (3 failed systems that were all at least twice as powerful as the machines the competition had out on the market. Atari made so many mistakes, their 64-bit Jaguar couldn't save them. 3DO was a technology rather than a console and many companies could produce their own version of 3DO - the problem was the price tag and not many people bought one. Neo Geo was another incredible system that didn't get to see much sun.)

1994 - Sega 32X & Sega Nomad (this is when Sega started to compete with itself by putting out a new piece of hardware every year or two before their previous system had enough time to take root. They kinda half-assed the release of the 32X which was an addon for the Genesis. They also failed to support it after it was released. The nomad was an attempt to clear out warehouses full of Genesis Cartridges)

1995 - Nintendo Virtual Boy (complete flop)

1995 - Sony Playstation (Ironically, this was originally planned to be an addon for a Nintendo console. They couldn't agree, so Sony decided to go ahead and release their own system into the market. Most were skeptical about the Playstation until they played on it. It quickly became the #1 console bar none.)

1995 - Sega Saturn (having just come out with their 32X system a year earlier, Sega shoots themselves in the foot. Despite this, the Saturn manages to enjoy a modest success versus the Playstation)

1996 - Nintendo 64 (Nintendo's strategy has been to be the Tourtise in this race by coming out with their next gen console a year or two after the competition has - the N64 enjoyed a bit of a success despite a very rocky start. Nintendo kept delaying and delaying this machine... when it was finally released, they had no games for it. Their least successful console I believe, but still more successful than many consoles on this list.)

1998 - Nintendo Gameboy Color (years after Sega introduces their Gamegear, Nintendo manages to re-release their classic Gameboy but with a dash of color and still no backlit display and pretty much own the handheld market - go figure)

1999 - Neo Geo Pocket & Bandai Wonderswan (what? where? - 2 disappearing handhelds... magic)

1999 - Sega Dreamcast (Sega once again manages to hit the market first with their next gen console. Also, since they waited a while this time, they didn't shoot themselves in the foot and they managed to achieve success - alas, as we all know, too late. The Dreamcast is still a strong seller even after the company announces that this is the last piece of hardware they will ever make again)

2000 - Sony Playstation 2 (again, a rocky start, but Sony manages to eventually come out on top - much help to the fact that their next gen console is backwards compatible with their original Playstation - It took a year before the games drew in the crowds, but now PS2 is the king of the hill)

2001 - Nintendo Gameboy Advance (Enormously successful 16 bit handheld. Once again, Nintendo neglects to backlight the display and yet everyone rushes out to go buy one)

2001 - Nintendo Gamecube (off to a slow start once again and once again not the strongest kid on the block. They opted to be different from the competition by making the player too small to handle large DVDs or music CDs. The system costs 100 bucks less than the competition as well.)

2001 - Microsoft Xbox (New to the console market, Microsoft decides to join the party. Their debut machine has been selling almost as fast as hotcakes - and only a little better than Gamecube - but only time will tell if Xbox has the staying power)

Six years ago when Sony launched their first console, it was met with much skepticism - they managed to become the #1 selling console on the market. This was partly due to a huge advertising budget. Part of the reason Sega never realized their success was that they didn't have the advertising budget of competing consoles. Plus - they made alot of mistakes over the years. Microsoft seems to have the advertising budget needed to market this Xbox thing, so I think they will just make room for 3 consoles. Nintendo's strategy has always been slow and steady wins the race. I've never understood how they have outsold Sega or other systems, but they always have - so they must be doing something right. I think that now with Sega gone, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will happily battle amongst themselves for the next 3 years and all three will be successful. Sony is now in the position that Sega has been many times - first to market with the next gen console and also having the least powerful system of the 3. That's dangerous ground. I don't think any of these three companies will "die" from the console business anytime in the next 5 years. I think if I had to pick which one would go first, it would either be Sony (not likely) or Nintendo (again, not likely). Microsoft is too serious about this and their system has been selling too well for them to give up on it. Time will tell though - Microsoft's machine could be the next Neo Geo or 3DO.

JaxComet

I have the XBOX and will be happy if it's around for 3 or 4 years. The technology moves so fast these days that I'm sure they'll be something better by then.....

agrall

Nice objective summary Trigger...

You know... This whole topic of which console will die first is kind of silly... Especially at this point in time.

agrall

FWIW... Of those consoles you mentioned...

I have owned:

Some old system that played pong-like games (? My parents bought it...)
NES (I wonder if one of my parents/siblings still have it...)
PSX (I sold it after a while because the games' graphics began to look very dated related to my computer.)
PS2 (I sold it after I experienced the X-Box on my HDTV/Dolby Digital system...and I also felt I didn't have the time enough to devote to 2 consoles, at least to verify the expense of owning 2 systems.)
X-Box (My current console of choice.)

I would leave this list open to purchase anything else that comes along and tickles my fancy... Although, since I already don't feel I have enough time to play what I have, it would have to really impress me to get something different.

Through most of this time, I have also used a computer of some sort for gaming as well, whether it be the Apple II for Wizardry + many others... or my current home-built PC for games like Civ III. I will probably update my PC sometime this summer...