Thursday, May 11, 2006
Console strategies:
Nintendo: Innovate, be cheap, sneak in under the radar of Microsoft and Sony to sell consoles to owners of Microsoft and Sony systems, with the hope of pitting them against each other while Nintendo sweeps up everyone who has the bigger systems. Launch with Zelda: A sure-fire killer APP. Also launch with the largest old school library ever offered, effectively gaining $$ on games that haven't needed much if any work for 0-20 odd years.
Microsoft: Get out early, undercut primary competitions price, gain exclusives, steal away exclusives from competitors: Primarily to be MS exclusive, but multi-console launches are vastly preferable to getting a game 3 years later. Be a long road, but at the end, hopefully they're in the lead.
Sony: Keep the PS2 so alive that gamers don't necessarily need a PS3 right away. Lowers stress for shipping on launch, and subsequent months. Also allows Sony to float the PS3 for a year or so until they really buckle down and drop the price to stay competitive. Sony's looking at a 10 year window for this system, and they aren't in a rush.
Be the most powerful, as they didn't like being the least powerful last gen(made them miss some kick ass titles). Include Blu-Ray in the hopes of expanding it's user base faster than HD-DVD's can go(that much is near certain).
Flaws.
Nintendo: Not really a Next Gen system. It's a GC with slightly more powerful hardware than a GC, and a couple controller innovations that might or might not completely take off. That makes it by far the cheapest console, though the year delay until launch after Microsoft might come and bite them in the ass. If the 360 core console sees a price drop to within the Wii price range, Nintendo will lose potential sales as a result.
Microsoft: Launch was the biggest flaw. I understand the need to get the system out fast, but Sony's E3 conference proved it a waste of energy. The 360 would have been cheaper anyway, so Microsoft might as well have waited a couple months in order to ensure that launch was near flawless. They could have saved a significant amount of money as well, seeing as how manufacturing costs have to have dropped by now. Every console they sold might have lost a bit less money. And yet, the 5 mil+ console sale lead is a definate requirement if Microsoft wants to pass Sony.
Sony: Price is definately the biggest flaw. Other than Canadians(he he), everyone will be paying about $200 US more for the PS3 than they did with the PS2. Having the premium PS3 cost $200 US more than the premium 360 is also not very smart. If their strategy works it might not matter, but there's no guaranteees that anyone's strategy will work the way they intend it to.
And the simple fact is that Sony might have won last gen on three points: First out(of the survivors anyway), cheaper than the most expensive, PS name recognition/contributions/total dominance of previous gen. Some may say the titles did it, but those three points led to the titles that came.
Nintendo: Innovate, be cheap, sneak in under the radar of Microsoft and Sony to sell consoles to owners of Microsoft and Sony systems, with the hope of pitting them against each other while Nintendo sweeps up everyone who has the bigger systems. Launch with Zelda: A sure-fire killer APP. Also launch with the largest old school library ever offered, effectively gaining $$ on games that haven't needed much if any work for 0-20 odd years.
Microsoft: Get out early, undercut primary competitions price, gain exclusives, steal away exclusives from competitors: Primarily to be MS exclusive, but multi-console launches are vastly preferable to getting a game 3 years later. Be a long road, but at the end, hopefully they're in the lead.
Sony: Keep the PS2 so alive that gamers don't necessarily need a PS3 right away. Lowers stress for shipping on launch, and subsequent months. Also allows Sony to float the PS3 for a year or so until they really buckle down and drop the price to stay competitive. Sony's looking at a 10 year window for this system, and they aren't in a rush.
Be the most powerful, as they didn't like being the least powerful last gen(made them miss some kick ass titles). Include Blu-Ray in the hopes of expanding it's user base faster than HD-DVD's can go(that much is near certain).
Flaws.
Nintendo: Not really a Next Gen system. It's a GC with slightly more powerful hardware than a GC, and a couple controller innovations that might or might not completely take off. That makes it by far the cheapest console, though the year delay until launch after Microsoft might come and bite them in the ass. If the 360 core console sees a price drop to within the Wii price range, Nintendo will lose potential sales as a result.
Microsoft: Launch was the biggest flaw. I understand the need to get the system out fast, but Sony's E3 conference proved it a waste of energy. The 360 would have been cheaper anyway, so Microsoft might as well have waited a couple months in order to ensure that launch was near flawless. They could have saved a significant amount of money as well, seeing as how manufacturing costs have to have dropped by now. Every console they sold might have lost a bit less money. And yet, the 5 mil+ console sale lead is a definate requirement if Microsoft wants to pass Sony.
Sony: Price is definately the biggest flaw. Other than Canadians(he he), everyone will be paying about $200 US more for the PS3 than they did with the PS2. Having the premium PS3 cost $200 US more than the premium 360 is also not very smart. If their strategy works it might not matter, but there's no guaranteees that anyone's strategy will work the way they intend it to.
And the simple fact is that Sony might have won last gen on three points: First out(of the survivors anyway), cheaper than the most expensive, PS name recognition/contributions/total dominance of previous gen. Some may say the titles did it, but those three points led to the titles that came.
Friends
My Friends
