What does the future hold?
 

Let me start off by saying hello to everyone I'm new to your forums and I decided to sign up after reading a few of the post's, there seems to be alot of intelligent people here and I like the no fanboys attitude. Ok so my first post is what everyones thoughts are on the current state of console gaming. This question is directed towards sales of the big three (xbox, playstation 2, and gamecube) so the question boils down to, do you think the market can handle three major systems at once. And what do you think will happen in the future in light of the current sale's figures for each system. Do you think the xbox will catch on in Japan, will american gamers warm up to the gamecube after the disaster that was the nintendo 64, will sony continue to dominate the console market? Also a little side question I have for everyone is, what console do you think will have the best games in 2002? P.S. fanboys need not reaply to this thread because no matter how much you like your system it don't mean it will be a sucess from a sales stand point.

Re: What does the future hold?
 

That is a lot of questions, welcome to the forum :D

1)Yes, the market can handle 3 systems, they aren't going to get pushed out.

2)Sales really don't matter too much over the short term as they do in the long term. All 3 are currently working on the Next-Next-Generation consoles

3)The I don't think the X-Box will sell well in Japan because of the lack of games for the system which appeal to the Japanese audience. A lot of people would regard the N64 as sucessful, not a disaster. Nintendo doesn't have to be first in the consoles, they have GBA. For this generation atleast, Sony will dominated the market and be sure that they are working to keep that domination in the Next-Next-Generation

4)PS2 will have the best games because they will have the most variety. Best game for one person is crap to another. Because it is all opinionated, a person will have a better chance to find a game that suits them on the PS2 as it has so many more games coming out for it.

Did I get everything?

I believe that the console market will hold all three consoles until the next generation. Sony is #1 by a long shot, and Nintendo and Microsoft are financially willing and able to support their consoles in the long run.

The interesting thing to see is what happens in the next generation. I believe that there will be some sort of merger. Most likely would be Nintendo and Microsoft working together on a console in an effort to knock Sony off its perch. On the other hand, I could also see Microsoft and Sony teaming up and creating a handheld rival to the Gameboy. Who knows?

As for who will have the best games in 2002, that's entirely subjective. I disagree with Josh when he says quantity=quality. The key thing is the number of good games, not the number of games as a whole. I'd rather have a system with only 10 titles coming out, all AAA, rather than one with 100 titles coming out, all but 1 being sub-par (hypothetical of course).

The real indicator of the next year will be E3...that is when we'll all have a better idea of what is coming. From there, you can decide which console has the best selection of games for your particular tastes. Of course, with less and less "exclusives" being announced, you might find all your most wanted games coming out on all three consoles.

I fully agree with Groucho. Having 100 titles comming out for a system and the games just OK won't cut it for the consumers. Having less games with quality is better. Is Joshd a Sony Playstation Fanboy?

No, he stated a simply fact. The PS2 does have a wider variety of titles coming out and it has by far the best third party support. Many of those games will probably be quite good. The PS2 will have its share of bad games, but believe me the GameCube and Xbox will have their share as well.

There will definitely be games worth getting on all three consoles, but I think overall the PS2 will continue to have the strongest game lineup.

Well, atleast one person understood what I was saying. A good game is determined only by the person who plays it. Many people think that FFX is a great game, but there are still others who don't like turn-based RPGs and think it is a bad game. Because the PS2 will have more games coming out for it, the chances that you will like one of those games increases. I did not say that because more games are coming out, it will be better. If you are going to disagree with me, make sure you don't misquote me.

So you are saying PS2 will have more quality games than any of the other systems because they make more games? I don't think that's true either. Maybe the person who understands you is a PS2 lover as well. Peace.

First of all, normal people do not use words like "fanboy." The fact is, everyone makes a decision based on the facts as they see them when they shell out for a system. Owning all the consoles doesn't make you the only one with the right to comment. it makes you a geek with too much money.

You don't have to be a "fanboy" to see that the future looks best for PS2. Quality over quantity was an argument Nintendo made in defense of the N64, and, it was arguably valid at the time. Nobody can make that argument over PS2 right now, because the PS2 has more quality games than the competition.

We won't know the shape of the game lineups for the next few months until after E3, but it's a good bet that the XBox line will be the worst.

Nintendo will probably show us a couple of "surprise" projects from Rare that have not been announced but are very near completion. They'll also show off a lot of Mario, a lot of Metroid, and hopefully, a lot more Zelda. There's a good chance that, while GC will not match PS2 in quantity, it will have as many top tier games.

PS2, meanwhile, will probably show GTA4 on video, something new from Sqaure (Chrono Trigger III, I hope), Wipeout (old news), Tomb Raider, and probably several surprises.

XBox, meanwhile is unlikely to secure very many third party exclusives, and their first party development muscle is not terribly strong, especially with Bungie at least a year and a half away from putting out another game on the scale of Halo.

The Star Wars RPG is a good exclusive for XBox, and I expect it to secure some other massively multiplayer games, since it has the buil-in online support. The small user base for XBox isn't as discouraging to developers of pay-by-the-month games, because they only need a few hundred thousand sales, instead of millions, to make a ton of money. Of course, XBox won't be the only place to go for massive multiplayer fun. The PS2 will have Everquest and Final Fantasy.

Okay, how you could misunderstand the same statement twice is beyond me. Let me try to break this down for you.

Lets just say you like Action games. And it turns out that consider 25% of the action games released to be "great games". If the PS2 puts out 4 action games over the next year, then statistically you will like one of the games. During this same year, if the X-box or GC puts out 1 action game each, the chances you will like that action game are only 1 in 4. If more games are released, the chances of you finding a game which you would consider a "great game" increase. Its not that hard of a concept, really. I am not arguing quantity over quality. If you have a wider selection of games to choose from, you are more likely to find more games which you would consider great games.

i think that all three systems can survive in the market. the PS2 will be number 1 with the GC and Xbox fighting for 2 and 3. however with the right games targeted at the people who do own the system , the consoles can make money in the long run. I believe the GC will have the easier time since they have a less expensive system and do not need to recoup huge loses in console sales than the Xbox.

I believe that the PS2 will have the best games however any system might have a huge hit game that will be the best overall single game so i do not think it is as cut and dried as that.

For example GTA3 took last year by surprise. I really think it might have been the best game last year.

so who knows maybe some game will surprise us all at E3. I would love to see that :)

and in spite of my not owning the XBox or GC(yet ) I do not really care which system it is on. I just hope it will be on the one I own :)


Anyone else getting tired of seeing Fanboy being thrown around. Disagree with what someone is saying or just disagree. Why be dismissive with terms like Fanboy :(

strange fact- Word 97 tries to replace Fanboy with Fanny :confused:

I agree with your point, but it's not so clear cut and dry in real life. Each manufactor has their own exclusive titles which can easily shift this balance. So while your logic is true, it fails to address these differences. So say that MS was able to produce one hit action title every year for whatever reason, that then puts them on the same level of Sony and in a position of surpassing it in quality action titles. (As it will still have that 1 possable hit release that year. )

Also having a dominent title can shy others games from being released. In other words if a manufactor releases a game that is by far superior to any other product, a 3rd party may not bother releasing or creating their sub-par game if they feel it doesn't offer a enough differences to market it.

Finally the other factor is that any 3rd party that produces a hit title will port it to the competition. That is unless it recieves a cash incentive to only release that on one system or their is political reasons. The point here is that fixed hit title per year is transferable to other systems. While not occuring all the time, it can and will occur occasionally, thus throwing more variables into the equation and evening the field.

At least that's how I view it. Any one see anything obviously wrong with these ideas?

I agree that the market can sustain three systems. I don't see the PS2 going anywhere for at least two or three years, regardless of all the PS3 talk. I don't think XBOX or CUBE will make an early departure either. It's true that the current XBOX lineup, while certainly exciting, is possibly the least exciting of the three, but they will still have tons of games- and even if their exclusives are not blockbusters, the usual buzz on the games that come out on all three systems is that the XBOX version is better (i.e. Spiderman this week). Nintendo will eventually get out Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, and probably one or two other exclusive hits (like the potential Rare titles mentioned above), so even if they do absolutely nothing else, they can still be very profitable (... and then there is GBA!).

My two cents on this PS2 software variety and quantity issue- I'd have to agree with those who say that the more games you have, the more likely any given person can find games they like. I mean, a ton of games does mean a lot of crap, but one man's crap is another's favorite game. I knew a guy who bought a PS2 to play Parappa 2, Mad Maestro, and the like. Won't touch GTA3, RPG's, GT3, or any sports. You never know. The idea that "quality" is universal isn't totally misguided (certainly more copies of FFX, MGS2, and GTA3 will be sold than Parappa 2), but in the end I think, regardless of whatever hypothetical situations we can come up with, more games means more games I'm going to think are AAA. Tons of games also means a few GTA3s and other semi-surprises that come out.

I love my PS2, but man I want to play Halo. That's all I want to play right not on the XBOX though. I bought a GameCube and really liked about one game so far (Pikmin), but I know I'll pick up the holy trinity at the end of the year. When XBOX has a few more must-play (for me) exclusives, I'll get one of those too.

By the way, I made a passing reference to it above, but the GBA is actually my primary system. I spend a crapload of money on games etc., but damnit, I play GBA more than GC and PS2 combined. May be my schedule (two hours total mass transit commuting each day), and it may just be that it's a great system, with a TON of games in every genre. Anyway, if you are a serious gamer and don't have one, check it out.

You are forgetting that consumers, not developers determine which games are going to be a hit. Just because a company plans on a game being a huge sucess, doesn't mean that it will happen that way. I mean, Daikatana was supposed to be the greatest thing but it tanked. My point is, that if there are more games out there, the chances that someone will find a game which they think is a hit increase. I understand your arguement behind exclusive games, but you can't base your arguement on the fact that they next Mario is going to be sucessful. No body knows. But, if they put out 3 Mario games in one year, the chances that people would like atleast one of them increases.

The point: you can't base your arguement on what you think the consumers will like. I am arguing that when you increase the number of games a consumer has to choose from, the chance of them liking one of the games you put out increases. Even if it is an underdog game (GTA3, where did that come from?), it can still become a hit because it was given to the consumers as another choice.

We'll get a more and better numbers in the next couple weeks. MS is expected to report earnings on 4/18 while Sony reports on 4/25. We won't be seeing Nintendo's official fiscal year-end report until 5/30, though they recently raised their projected net profits (mostly due to recent favorable foreign exchange rates).

With cumulative worldwide shipments of 25M as of 12/31/01, Sony's lead is so great that it's hard to imagine a likely scenario where either Nintendo or MS can catch up. In the quarter that saw two strong competitors launch their products in North America, the PS2 sold as many as both GC and XBox combined. Even if Sony sold its last PS2 today, at current sales rates, it'd take over 2 years for either GC or XBox to catch up. The battle for domination of this generation is over, Sony won.

Does that mean that GC and XBox are dead? Of course not, both of those consoles appear destined for long and healthy lives, they just won't ever be able to claim bragging rights for being #1.

IMHO, XBox will likely be relegated to a strong #3 this generation. It'll probably never become a profitable operation for MS, but that's not a problem so long as MS can maintain its monopoly in PC software. The current anti-trust case against MS is something of a wildcard, but the chances that MS will be severly hurt, i.e. broken up or be significantly sanctioned to the extent that they might be forced to give up on the console game market is very, very low.

For current XBox owners, I don't think there's anything to be worried about. In fact, there's really nothing that would prevent me from recommending that someone buy an XBox now. The slate of games on the schedule is pretty strong. All the multi-platform games will likely be a little bit better on the XBox than any other console, there'll be lots of PC ports to choose from, and of the few exclusives, it's possible that one of them may turn out to be a monster. Even if GTA, MGS, or other high profile franchises never make it to the XBox, there will be no shortage of other excellent titles for XBox owners to choose from.

XBox Sales will probably continue to ramp slowly over the course of the traditionally slow summer months. Unless there's something truely earthshattering announced at E3, the next big thing for MS will be the debut of their online network for the XBox. That'll bump sales a bit, but over the course of this next year, worldwide, I can't see them keeping up with Nintendo.

Right now, the company that Mario built is trailing MS slightly in worldwide shipments. Despite a lower price, their initial launch in NA wasn't quite as strong as Microsoft's. However, following the release of a few strong titles, their sales ramped higher and it may have been even better if not for some continued supply constraints.

Heading into their European launch scheduled for May 3rd, Nintendo looks to have a pretty healthy upside. IMHO, the primary reason for the XBox's lukewarm reception on the Continent was its high price. Given the GC's recently beefed up game catalog and the fact that the GC is priced even lower than the PS2's lowered prices in Europe, it's my guess that the GC will see a fairly strong launch there.

Couple that with a schedule of releases from each of Nintendo's top franchises over the next year, in my mind at least, barring any surprises, the GC has a lock on the #2 spot.

Now, all the forward looking statements here are pure speculation on my part and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong if it turns out that way. Lord knows, I've been wrong enough that I'm used to admitting it. On the matter of the current console horse race, however, I think I've had a pretty decent track record so far ;).

Ultimitley you are correct it is up to the consumers. However, as you bring up Mario, Nintendo nearly always releases AAA titles. So the only way that game is not going to sell is if people start refusing to play great games. And if that's the case Nintendo will just adapt to what they want. In the end a company that produces quality software will sell it well regardless. There's no need to release 3 different types of Mario games when Nintendo can release 1 great one that everyone loves playing. It's not like they are taking a random shot into the dark when they release the game, they are quite aware of consumer interest and spending habits.

The way I see it, you are viewing it as way to clear cut and dry as I tried to address in my first post. There are many other factors that take place. When you choose to ignore those factors you do get the equation that you explain, of having more selection increases gamers possability of liking a game. However, I think those factors I mention are very real and stand on their own. Yes consumers dictate what is bought and becomes popular, but a great game is a great game. 99% of the time it will sell well.

Finally I think the point you bring up about consumers is mute anyway to your original arguement. You discuss the probability of great games coming to a system, not whether people will buy them. If a company releases a great game, its still a great game regardless if its bought. So the availability of great games remains as I stated in my first post. In other words the game is there if people will want it. Besides, if a console is healthy it will sell a I mentioned earlier.

You are assuming that one of the 4 games are good on the PS2. You can assume that, but in most case it's not. joshd you own a PS2 don't you and nothing else? Just admit it. Your opionions are biased. ScandalUMD, your opinions may be biased as well. We need fair opinions here so someone who owns all three consoles should give it instead. Not PS2 fanboy. If you do not know what fanboy is, read the first post.

I think all three systems will survive this generation. IMO Sony will stay number one in sales by a long shot, the GCN will move into a solid second by the end of the year. The reason? GCN has several system seller games coming out before the end of the year, where as MS hasn't shown anything yet that will sell the X-box to casual gamers.

In reality, it doesn't matter who sells what. Just get the system(s) that allow you to play the games you like.

For me it's the GCN as I love Nintendo games and Rare games, and the third party support has been pretty good, especially on the sports side. I mainly play platformers, fighters, and sports games, so I'm all set with the GCN, especially by years end when we get games like Mario, Soul Calibur 2, Metroid, etc.

I'm debating on getting a second system if I don't end up going to grad school, the reason being with school and work I don't currently have time to keep up with games on the GCN and GBA, let alone a second console, and if I do grad school it will be more of the same.

At any rate, if I do get a second console, it will definitely be a PS2. Sony simply has the best game library right now. The only X-box game (out or announced) that I want is Halo, and I'm not dying to play that as I'm not a huge FPS fan. With the Genre's I like, a GCN and PS2 would let me play 99% of the games that interest me.

i think we will know more after E3. MS has to have something up its sleeve other than online gaming. once we see what they have planned for the rest of the year, it will be easier to predict their fate. Nintendo has shown their hand a bit, but has also been plauged with delays as usual. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree with pretty much every one that Sony is #1 in this generation though.

for me, i just want swilly versions of mario golf and tennis on the cube!!!!!

oh yeah, plus those other titles ;)

It is ridiculous that the only "fair opinion" comes from a person who must own all 3 consoles. A person who owns all three consoles has a particular worldview with concern to gaming as well.

The fact is, the PS2 has millions more systems shipped than either of the other consoles. Third parties will develop for PS2 because it has the greatest sales potential.

Nintendo has the high quality first and second party titles. There will be plenty of good games on Gamecube, because Nintendo and Rare will continue to develop them.

The XBox is attractive for Massively Multiplayer games. Other than pay-by-the-month online games, I can't see how it would be cost effective to develop exclusively, or even primarily for XBox. It will get whatever Microsoft can buy for it outright, and the rest of its games will be PS2 ports (let's be realistic; multiconsole games are usually PS2 ports) and bad exclusive games which will seek a less competitive market on XBox.

XBox probably isn't the best console for anyone except massively multiplayer gamers and people with HDTVs. End of story. And if that makes me a "fanboy," then fine, but there's a careful line of reasoning that led me to predict that the PS2 would have the best games and that the XBox would fail. I made my choice based on future prospects, not fandom, and my predictions have been pretty accurate.

You would almost have to be an XBox "fanboy" to believe the console is doing well right now. It has three good games, and only one game (Halo) that PS2 owners really have cause to be jealous of.

I think MS expected everyone to buy the XBox based on the hardware specs, and the developers to flock to it. It didn't happen. XBox almost certainly doesn't have a top tier third party exclusive, and probably doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of first party punch.

Sony probably has something big to announce, hopefully a strong online presence, and some single player stuff from Square.

Nintendo has shown off their Japanese stuff, but we haven't heard much at all from Rare. I expect there is a new Perfect Dark game very near completion. They announced it two years ago, planned for the launch when GC was still the Dolphin, and it hasn't been seen since. But they've probably been working on it. Nintendo is very disciplined about keeping secrets.

I assume nothing. I am only giving an example. Yes, it is true that I own a PS2 and no other console. That doesn't mean I don't play other consoles on a regular basis. I am not a FanBoy as you would like to believe. Either way, I don't see how owning all three systems would give you insight as to which system will have the most AAA titles. Do you actually believe that owning all three systems will give you the ability to predict the future?

Jeff, you can't assume that a company always releases a great title. You can't assume that the consumers will buy it. The only thing that you can assume is that the PS2 will have more titles released for it (just take a look at the release dates). Becuase you can assume that more titles will be released for the PS2, you can also assume that chances of a gamer liking one of the games released goes up (as there are more games to choose from). Therefore, there is a greater chance of a title reaching AAA status.

I would still maintain that the X-Box is doing better right now than the PS2 was at the same point in its life-span.

I bought a PS2 at launch time, and while I enjoyed Madden 2001, there was a real drought of good games until GT3 finally came out. Even then, the decent games werer very few and far between. Now, 1 1/2 years later, the PS2 is getting a whole lot more games more frequently.

The X-Box is less than 5 months olds folks... It has some very nice games available... And I think a better library than when the PS2 was less than 5 months old. I have been having fun playing such games as Rallisport Challenge and multiplayer Halo... And I am picking up new games this week, and maybe next week.

For some reason people have very selective memories and forget how the PS2 was doing game-wise during its early days...

I agree that both the X-box and GCN are much better off than the PS2 was at this point in it's life. However, that's not saying much. The PS2 had the poorest launch, and first year, software wise of any system I can recall.

Bad comparison. Sony didn't need better games than it had. It was sold out everywhere anyway, because it was the hot ticket in an open field. The Dreamcast was crippled and dying and the PS2 launched into an empty field.

XBox launched against an incredible PS2 lineup, and the Gamecube. It was a whole different ballgame. The XBox is not competing with the PS2 in March 2001. The XBox is competing with the PS2 right now, and it doesn't have the luxury of a slow start. It needed to be spectacular, and it wasn't, and the PS2 stole all its thunder.

The XBox has to give PS2 owners a reason to buy a second console, and it has to give new buyers a reason to pick XBox over the competition. It hasn't been terribly successful at doing either of these things.

correct me if I'm wrong
 

but wasn't the PS2 a shoe in to be a hit? The PSone, as it is now referred to, was a hit and the PS2 was to pick up where it left off. The Dreamcast was the only other system out there that was in the same "next generation" class and the PS2 was expected to trounce the Dreamcast as it ended up doing. Xbox or GCN would have to not only topple Sony but also beat off the other "next generation" class system. It should be obvious to everyone now that PS2 is the system with the lead and it will be almost impossible for one of the others to take that lead this late in the game. The other two will probably be successful, just not as successful as PS2. If MS wants to take Sony out they would need to beat Sony to the punch on the next system. If MS builds an xbox2 that kicks the ps2 in the teeth then MS will have a lead that Sony would have a hard time catching up to with PS3. Does any of this really matter now though? There are good games on all systems and those of us that have systems seem to enjoy them since every time someone brings up this topic everyone runs in to throw around their opinion.