Sunday, March 14, 2004
Responding to some comments
Clearly, this latest debate has sparked some passion so, instead of responding to the individual comments at the bottom of each post, I'll just reply here.
I really do not think that any of the three systems will launch a year later than the competition this time around. As history has shown, the first system out of the gate usually wins. The only exceptions are the Saturn and Dreamcast. The Saturn came out a mere 4 months before the PlayStation so the early release date did not really matter too much. Also, they pretty much lost the race before it even started by designing a 2D system in the 3D era. The Dreamcast always seemed like a tweener system. More powerful than the N64, but not powerful enough to compete with the PS2 generation. If you include this in the current generation, then it is the only exception to the "release a year early and win" theory.
At this point, before any new system has even been named let alone shown, all we have is speculation. I think that if Sony says they will come out Fall '06, then Nintendo and Microsoft will try their hardest to arrive that holiday season as well.
You can argue that point if you like, but it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales.
As more and more games go multiplatform, it seems likely that most of the games available at launch will be on more than one system. If it comes out in the fall, EA will probably launch a Madden game, for all systems. You can probably expect a new SSX as well. And a new Tony Hawk, those things come out every year. The majority of launch titles are usually not Metal Gear Solid caliber. It is probably pretty safe to assume that the majority of launch titles for all three systems will be easily ported 3rd party offerings. That is just the way things work for a system's launch. There is usually not enough time to learn new hardware and develop a new, original game that takes advantage of it.
Obviously, every company will need a few games to make their system stand out. This is Nintendo's biggest strength. They are in the best position to offer great, exclusive content for their system at launch. As a first party devloper, they have intimate knowledge of their own system. Since MS and Sony rely on 3rd party support for the most part, it will be very difficult to get a great, original game available at launch. Without a strong relationship or a deal to keep a game exclusive, they might only have one or two titles available exclusively for their system.
And, if all three systems launch within a few months, which seems like the most logical thing, they will be no leader to support. Therefore, there is little reason to make a game exclusive to the new PlayStation when the other two have just as good of a chance to win the war.
My point is, in an industry fueled by money, you will see more and more titles follow the Red Dead Revolver and Pandora Tomorrow school of thought. That is, with a little more work a third party developer can make more money by releasing their game on two or three systems. Without a strong in house team, it is possible that Sony will not have the exclusive content needed to build a strong user base.
I did not mean to imply Sony is doomed. Clearly, they are not. They could have two straight Saturn type failures in a row and still have a new system ready for the next next next generation. I just think Sony needs to shore up some real exclusive content, most likely in the form of stronger 1st and 2nd party support, to continue their success.
About Grand Theft Auto being an exclusive or not. Clearly, having a year, or more, cushion between a PS2 and Xbox release is very significant. My point was not that Vice City sales were split between the Xbox and PS2. Obviously, most video game players just bought Vice City for their PS2. No reason not to since it's the greatest game this generation and all. My point was that the series is not exclusive. My point was that, since Sony already lost out on having the sole rights to the lucrative GTA franchise, there is a chance in the future that new GTAs might be on all 3 systems at the same time. There is a chance that GTA will appear exclusively on the Xbox 2, and never make it's way to the PS3 or Gamecube 2.
Unlike Gran Turismo, Sony does not actually own the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Since their biggest game is made by a third party, there is a chance they will lose exclusive rights in the future. Just look what happened to Resident Evil. Who would have guessed in 1997 that two consecutive Resident Evil titles would appear exclusively on a Nintendo system. This industry does some weird things. If you aren't making your own games, anything can happen.
One last note, regarding my "Japan has the worst taste in gaming" line. Clearly, I love the Japanese. Nintendo and Capcom etc. live there. But... come on! Dating Sims! Majong! Horse Racing titles! Bah!
And they ignore the great titles atop our sales chart like... Enter the Matrix. The nerve.
I really do not think that any of the three systems will launch a year later than the competition this time around. As history has shown, the first system out of the gate usually wins. The only exceptions are the Saturn and Dreamcast. The Saturn came out a mere 4 months before the PlayStation so the early release date did not really matter too much. Also, they pretty much lost the race before it even started by designing a 2D system in the 3D era. The Dreamcast always seemed like a tweener system. More powerful than the N64, but not powerful enough to compete with the PS2 generation. If you include this in the current generation, then it is the only exception to the "release a year early and win" theory.
At this point, before any new system has even been named let alone shown, all we have is speculation. I think that if Sony says they will come out Fall '06, then Nintendo and Microsoft will try their hardest to arrive that holiday season as well.
You can argue that point if you like, but it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales.
As more and more games go multiplatform, it seems likely that most of the games available at launch will be on more than one system. If it comes out in the fall, EA will probably launch a Madden game, for all systems. You can probably expect a new SSX as well. And a new Tony Hawk, those things come out every year. The majority of launch titles are usually not Metal Gear Solid caliber. It is probably pretty safe to assume that the majority of launch titles for all three systems will be easily ported 3rd party offerings. That is just the way things work for a system's launch. There is usually not enough time to learn new hardware and develop a new, original game that takes advantage of it.
Obviously, every company will need a few games to make their system stand out. This is Nintendo's biggest strength. They are in the best position to offer great, exclusive content for their system at launch. As a first party devloper, they have intimate knowledge of their own system. Since MS and Sony rely on 3rd party support for the most part, it will be very difficult to get a great, original game available at launch. Without a strong relationship or a deal to keep a game exclusive, they might only have one or two titles available exclusively for their system.
And, if all three systems launch within a few months, which seems like the most logical thing, they will be no leader to support. Therefore, there is little reason to make a game exclusive to the new PlayStation when the other two have just as good of a chance to win the war.
My point is, in an industry fueled by money, you will see more and more titles follow the Red Dead Revolver and Pandora Tomorrow school of thought. That is, with a little more work a third party developer can make more money by releasing their game on two or three systems. Without a strong in house team, it is possible that Sony will not have the exclusive content needed to build a strong user base.
I did not mean to imply Sony is doomed. Clearly, they are not. They could have two straight Saturn type failures in a row and still have a new system ready for the next next next generation. I just think Sony needs to shore up some real exclusive content, most likely in the form of stronger 1st and 2nd party support, to continue their success.
About Grand Theft Auto being an exclusive or not. Clearly, having a year, or more, cushion between a PS2 and Xbox release is very significant. My point was not that Vice City sales were split between the Xbox and PS2. Obviously, most video game players just bought Vice City for their PS2. No reason not to since it's the greatest game this generation and all. My point was that the series is not exclusive. My point was that, since Sony already lost out on having the sole rights to the lucrative GTA franchise, there is a chance in the future that new GTAs might be on all 3 systems at the same time. There is a chance that GTA will appear exclusively on the Xbox 2, and never make it's way to the PS3 or Gamecube 2.
Unlike Gran Turismo, Sony does not actually own the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Since their biggest game is made by a third party, there is a chance they will lose exclusive rights in the future. Just look what happened to Resident Evil. Who would have guessed in 1997 that two consecutive Resident Evil titles would appear exclusively on a Nintendo system. This industry does some weird things. If you aren't making your own games, anything can happen.
One last note, regarding my "Japan has the worst taste in gaming" line. Clearly, I love the Japanese. Nintendo and Capcom etc. live there. But... come on! Dating Sims! Majong! Horse Racing titles! Bah!
And they ignore the great titles atop our sales chart like... Enter the Matrix. The nerve.
// posted by Tom @ 9:13 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]