The First system released "almost" always loses [Archive]

View Full Version : The First system released "almost" always loses

Anthony1

01-06-2005, 06:17 PM

Ladies and Gentleman, quite possibly in November of 2005, either Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft could release the first "next" Next Generation platform.

A brand new console war will be underway.

But one of the questions that comes to mind when pondering such things is the fact that very rarely, does the first system out win the battle. Just take a look at some of the systems that were first in their generation of consoles:

Dreamcast - Modern Times failure
Saturn - 32 Bit Failure
TurboGraphx-16 - So called "16 bit" failure

You can see that being first out the gate isn't necessarily the best idea. In the last 3 generations of hardware, all three of the pioneer's failed. In the most recent battle, Dreamcast was the first out the gate in the modern age of consoles. Then followed PS2 and XBOX and GameCube. But if Dreamcast didn't die such a premature death, then it would still be in the mix, or just now completely dying off. You look at the Sega Saturn. The Saturn was the first "major" 32 bit system to be released. (technically, the 3DO was the first, but it also failed) Then followed the PS1 and the N64. Before that, in the great 16 bit era. The TurboGrafx-16 was the first out. It wasn't a "true" 16-bit system, but it was marketed as such, and competed directly with the Genesis and later the SNES.

Being the first one out the gates is historically not a very good idea. Usually one of the biggest problems of being first, is that everybody else get's a chance to see what you got going on, and they know that they at least have to beat it from a technical perspective. When you come out first, you really don't know what the other guys got hidden away, and you could end up looking foolish.

Although certainly raw power doesn't usually predict the winner either.

Another bad thing about being first is that by the team a system actually reaches the marketplace, it's technological capabilities are quite old. When the Saturn first hit, this was technology that Sega had sitting around for awhile. They were just sitting on the Saturn for like 2 years, and then by the time it actually was available in the U.S. it was old, outdated technology, and it couldn't really do 3D games quite right. Sega panicked, tried to redesign the system at the last minute, adding more processors, and then it still came out with the relatively underpowered machine. Knowing damn well, that it was pretty stale technology.

Looking at the Dreamcast, it was simply a system that the public wasn't necessarily clamoring for. The public was pretty damn happy with their PS1's and N64's. They weren't demanding that a new system be released. I can some parallels with that and our current situation. The Dreamcast was a very powerfull machine, and really, it's a damn shame that it bit the dust, but I think that it came out too early. The Saturn failing so early in it's life cause Sega to come out with a next gen system much earlier than it possibly should have. It was a chain reaction that caused both of their systems to fail. Nintendo should look at that and hope that a similar fate doesn't become them.

And looking at the XBOX. Why the hell should they release a new XBOX right now? There is no need for it. The XBOX is easily the most powerfull system available, and the power of the machine has barely been taped. They should just stay the course, and hope that both Sony and Nintendo delay their systems as well, because pretty soon more XBOX's will be sold per month than the other 2 systems, because pretty soon those other guys will look pretty long in the tooth compared to XBOX. So really, Microsoft should be the last company to be thinking about a new system. They are in the least need of one.

You look at Sony, and they currently are totally dominating the market with a very old piece of technology. But they have the best developers in the world doing everything they possibly can to try to make wine out of water on the PS2. And they are doing it. Look at KillZone, look at GT4. Sony continues to sell their PS2 system at an extremely high clip, so you think to yourself, why mess with a good thing? Why screw with anything? Just work on the PS3 and keep it ready, keep it totally cutting edge, and see what the other guys do first.

Honestly, there really shouldn't be a new system until September 2006. That's when Nintendo should release their system. And then XBOX 2 and PS3 can both come out in late November 2006.

AB Positive

01-06-2005, 06:35 PM

I posted something similar to this way back on GameTZ forums in 2000... sort of odd how that works out isn't it?

-AG

vintagegamecrazy

01-06-2005, 06:42 PM

Agreed. The Dreamcast failed for no reason the market wouldn't accept it. The Turbo grafx, Jaguar, 7800, Amiga CD 32 especially, CD-i, Pippin and others were out early but would have done worlds better if there was more advertising for them. The successful consoles flooded the market with advertising, but the above mentioned had so little advertising. I remember hearing rumors about some of these consoles but nothing more than that so that is why they failed.

MegaDrive20XX

01-06-2005, 06:42 PM

There is no hard evidence that 2005 will see a new console.

Also, let's add in Atari Jaguar, because the 64-bit era was possibly the shortest lived and over-rated out of all wars.

I also feel that Saturn and PSX were tops before N64 arrived. Doesn't anyone remember X-mas of 1996? Three systems at each others throats for the first time in the 90's.

Being the first out of the gate really leaves you for a wide open hit. Yet Sony already had a massive fan based-tidal wave of people. So many were brain washed to DEATH that the PS2 was going to be succesful for the graphics and added features

Also given the time of release, the DVD feature was one of the main reasons people wanted one so badly according to polls taken at that time in 2000. Since it was a cheaper means of having a system and a DVD player in one..ask any average joe walking down the street "Why did you buy a PS2" from 2000 to 2001...and one of the answers will be that.

When Xbox and Cube arrived, the number one question at that time was "Does it play DVD's?" and every moronic magazine would tell their readers how much it sucked not to have DVD playback on GameCube.

When I for one, do not care what it does besides playing games...All I care is if it plays games

Backwards compatibility is another issue, but Sony used that to drill into the hearts of the american consumers.

as for Dreamcast, people have already embedded in their minds that "SEGA SUCKS" since the days of Genesis Vs. SNES. Of course the public didn't accept it, they were displeased with the past products already.

Overpriced Saturn, More Add-ons for Genesis, more variations of the Genesis Systems...the public does not like an overwhelming variety of choice from what I have seen in the past. Choice is good, but too much will make the people confused and want to go with something simplier....SNES was just by itself...could handle so much...and not even ask for a CD add-on

The big question used to be "Why do I need a CD/Cart add on? Is something wrong with my system already?"

digitalpress

01-06-2005, 06:47 PM

Though I agree with Anthony's analysis (though I could argue on the handheld and 8-bit front), this is really a meaningless statistic, a coincidence.

It reminds me of the stats you hear watching sporting events: "Green Bay is 14-2 in games where the temperature is under 32 degrees" or "On artificial turf the AFC team wins most of the time" or "Don Mattingly hits better the day after his birthday than on his birthday".

These stats, as well as the "16-bit and up systems released first always fail" are more a matter of coincidence than they are of any particular factual or scientific reason. I'm sure you can look at some of these "losers" and see that they're excellent systems victims of various pitfalls (rarely the same, as I'm sure has or will be mentioned).

My two cents.

MegaDrive20XX

01-06-2005, 06:59 PM

Furthermore, I believe there is no need for a release in 2005 for a system

There is has been one exception to what has been released first. Look at GameBoy...first true portable gaming system....many have tried to bring it down...and over half a dozen have fallen from it's hold on the portable market....GameGear...Lynx..Turbo Express...graphically superior...yet GameBoy survives easily?? Does that make sense?

Yet you do prove that PS2's outdated hardware still thrives, so that's a mystery to me.

2006 would be a finer time for us all to prepare for the next trio.

boatofcar

01-06-2005, 07:40 PM

MegaDrive20XX

01-06-2005, 07:49 PM

SoulBlazer

01-06-2005, 07:52 PM

I'm not sure I would put the Dreamcast in the same class as the modern systems. So I would say Sony DID succeed by getting the PS2 out a year before the GameCube and XBox.

And there's a reason why Green Bay does so well in winter at home, Joe -- the same reason the Pats do so well. :P

Flack

01-06-2005, 07:57 PM

Right, like how the ColecoVision and the Intellivision beat the pants off the Atari 2600. And how the Sega Master System destroyed Nintendo's NES.

MegaDrive20XX

01-06-2005, 07:59 PM

Right, like how the ColecoVision and the Intellivision beat the pants off the Atari 2600. And how the Sega Master System destroyed Nintendo's NES.

Actually I'd like to add 7800 in place for that part "SMS Destroyed Nintendo's NES"...makes it comical in a sense...

soniko_karuto

01-06-2005, 08:56 PM

There is has been one exception to what has been released first. Look at GameBoy...first true portable gaming system....many have tried to bring it down...and over half a dozen have fallen from it's hold on the portable market....GameGear...Lynx..Turbo Express...graphically superior...yet GameBoy survives easily?? Does that make sense?

One word.

Tetris.

also, almost all nintendo handhelds have been done thinking with battery's, if i remember correctly, on th gb you could squeeze around 10 hours on 4 AA's, while the turbo express and the game gear can only do about 2 hours.

Also tetris pwns, and it has the most catchy song in it.

sabre2922

01-06-2005, 09:12 PM

ok here goes:
first the Dreamcast is in the same generation as the PS2 and Gamecube and even the Xbox.
I would argue that the Xbox is in a generation all its lonesome when the power that it holds is actually tapped into just look at the almost Generational gap between the 3 versions of SPLINTER CELL more to the point the graphically fallout between the PS2 and the Xbox versions.
Im sure Im not the only one who has seen the unfinished version of Max Payne that was to be released on the DC hell it looked better than the PS2 version LOL
I very much enjoy both my PS2 and Xbox and plan on getting another 'cube "Someday" but since I play my Xbox constantly I might have to get another one soon.
anyway the thing about being out first is always a curse isnt neccassarily true and holds little water IMOA.
Everyone here should know by now that you CANNOT SELL A SYSTEM WITHOUT PUMPING SUPER HYPE down the throats of all the so-called "casual gamers" out there who buy anything with a Sony or Playstation name on it even if it is no better than the system it killed=Dreamcast.
It doesnt matter to the mass public if it is one of the best designed systems ever made (DREAMCAST) or one of the worst (PS2) its all about marketing and brainwashing the uneducated mass of casual gamers that make or break a home console system.
AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE BABY! :P

zektor

01-06-2005, 09:50 PM

Hmm, Anthony, you do have a point, but I think there is a few underlying reasons why these "first release" systems fail. I think it would be safe to say that the "in" thing amongst many gamers is was is "new" and "hot" at that particular moment. The DS is a new system, and sold out everywhere...or at least everywhere I can see. And when it comes in, it sells out within hours once again. It is the new, hot item right now. This will not be so when the PSP comes out however, and this is where a good game line-up and advertising must come into play hardcore for the DS to continue to be neck and neck with it's new contender.

See, some of these systems from the past didn't go this route. TG16 didn't (unless you consider those stupid comics), and the Atari Jaguar sure as hell didn't. But, the Sega Genesis did, and in my opinion pretty much won the 16-bit war.

The "beginner", (that is the company that releases the new console first) may have the upper hand in being the new kid on the block first, but there's alot more they have to do to keep that title because of it.

Promophile

01-06-2005, 10:08 PM

I'll put forth another thesis, and this is that the reason the "first out" systems fail is because these systems are pushed out first for a reason, and that is beceause they can't beat the competiton in a 1 on 1 fight.

it290

01-06-2005, 11:41 PM

I've given some thought to this in the past, but really it's fairly meaningless IMHO. What's really important is marketing, including the price point of the system. The TG-16, Saturn, and Dreamcast all failed thanks to sub-par marketing, in my opinion. I do class the DC in the same generation as the PS2, GC, and Xbox, but had the DC never been released, I'm sure Sony would be in the same position it's in today. In fact, had the PS2 come out as late as the GC and Xbox did, Sony would probably be in third place right now.

christianscott27

01-06-2005, 11:56 PM

i pretty much chalk up system success or failure to game developer support, which pretty much explains sony's dominating postion, the long life of the NES, the failure of NEC and so on. everything else is secondary.

YoshiM

01-07-2005, 12:09 AM

Sorry Anthony, I can't really agree with your analysis. You're looking at one aspect but not "the rest of the story". The systems you mentioned being first and dying happened to be coincidence.

-3DO: expensive piece of hardware and it was marketed in a way that confused the audience. Is it a game machine or is it "Something Else"? The idea of "multimedia" was still pretty new to the minds of the public and coughing up a lot of bones for a quasi game machine was hard to swallow from folks. Plus who the heck was three-dee-oh: a question on many people's minds.

-Saturn: being first didn't kill it, it was a whole lotta other stuff (disgruntled Sega customers, Sony's powerful advertising and easy to program system, etc.).

-Dreamcast: I want to say this machine was not geared toward the mainstream. Awesome system but Sega's reputation, their financial situation and again Sony's awesome product penetration (I swear people jack-a-lacked off to PS2 specs) caused the little big machine to fall. One could also say EA might have had a hand but that's a conspiracy theory fit for another thread.

-TG-16: no software. Don't get me wrong there were good titles like Bonk's Adventure, Blazing Lazers, R-Type, etc. but many games didn't seem to snag interest in the states. It also didn't help that you couldn't find the games everywhere (local K-Marts carried everything BUT TG-16, I had to order games or go to TRU). Sega mopped up the floor with the TG-16 thanks to a library of titles every gamer could relate to: arcade titles.

I will agree one takes a big risk coming out first. When the SNES came out it Genesis looked dated with its smaller palette and not-so-powerful sound. But somebody has to and as long as you've got the games you'll get the crowd. The Gameboy wasn't all that grand but it had the software that kept it going until what, 1997 or 1999 or so when the GBC came out? Everyone else's handhelds died a horrible death.

So no, being first isn't a death sentence unless you have no plan.

whoisKeel

01-07-2005, 12:12 AM

Well, if the phantom comes out this year...you win anthony1 :)

Was the turbografx really a failure, or just here in the U.S.? I was under the impression that the PC Engine was a pretty big contender in its heyday, and that it took quite awhile for it to reach our shores.

it290

01-07-2005, 12:17 AM

Yes, the PC Engine was quite a popular system, but, much like the Saturn, many of the best games were not brought to the West.

yoursisterspretty

01-07-2005, 03:23 AM

Ed Oscuro

01-07-2005, 04:28 AM

Honestly, there really shouldn't be a new system until September 2006. That's when Nintendo should release their system. And then XBOX 2 and PS3 can both come out in late November 2006.
Says who? Why should Nintendo release their system first - is Nintendo fated or something?

Ceteris paribus, the first system on the market should win. Of course that's often not true in practice, which shows that arriving first is far from the only way a console can win. Look at the DC - I'm not quite sure what happened there but I bet it had a lot to do with advertising. Game Boy wins for its battery life, brand name, and good games (something the Supervision didn't have). Well, I could go on, but in truth most of us already should know this stuff.

banski83

01-07-2005, 05:38 AM

Not sure if this is going off topic a little or not, but I refer back to the comments about the DS and PSP 'fight' somebody mentioned earlier. This battle won't be similar to past ones, as the two machines are different pieces of hardware (DS is a dedicated games console, PSP is a mutimedia console) and are aimed at slightly differing markets.

Plus I think that the new input methods on the DS (touchscreen, microphone) are methods for Nintendo to draw in younger gamers, therefore setting themselves up with a longterm userbase of gamers for the future (Nintendo intend to stay around a lot longer!), whilst Sony is appealing to its existing user base of teens to mid-twenty year old casual gamers and multimedia fans.

This may mean Sony might initially jump ahead when the PSP is released, but I think the DS will win overall, as its aimed at a wider, more receptive audience (including kids & parents (the key advantage for Nintendo), teens and mid-twenty year olds) with fun, deceptively simple concepts and games, and innovative input methods to back it up when compared with the PSP. Sony may be restricting themselves to a smaller audience and consumer group, and this is not a good idea. The PSP is aimed at an older, technologically literate group (the same group they targetted with the PS2) and whilst this, combined with other factors, paid off with the PS2, I think they're going to find it a much more difficult challenge to compete with the DS on Nintendo's home ground.

The kids and parents (a huge casual gamer area) will be particularly decisive in helping Nintendo, and Sony may have to work harder than it thinks to make headway with its more expensive and relatively unknown machine.

Sorry for the long post btw, just thought I'd put it up and see what others think about the handheld battle, as I think it will have a significant effect on the next home console war, depending on who wins with the handhelds

Ernster

01-07-2005, 05:54 AM

PS3 can be relased, first, last or right in the middle...its still gonna win :(

max 330 mega

01-07-2005, 06:11 AM

i think Sammy should just buy Microsoft and Sony, force them to produce nothing but pachislot machines and cellphone games, and then release a home console version of the Atomiswave, and then Nintendo and Sammy can duke it out.... ahh what a dream that would be.
LOL

Dimitri

01-07-2005, 06:26 AM

and then release a home console version of the Atomiswave

You mean...the Dreamcast (http://www.system16.com/other/hrdw_atomiswave.html)? :roll:

Harry75

01-07-2005, 07:03 AM

In my opinion DreamCast falure whas predictable, because Sony and Nintendo were much stable financialy, dont even speaking about Microsoft. In fact the Dreamcast was so good!!!! Shame that money is ewerything not the games and people whos playing them. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

banski83

01-07-2005, 08:11 AM

Predictable, but still lamentable :angry: :(

Keir

01-07-2005, 09:38 AM

You look at the Sega Saturn. The Saturn was the first "major" 32 bit system to be released. (technically, the 3DO was the first, but it also failed)
Technically the FM Towns Marty was the first 32 bit system, but if we're just comparing consoles released in the US then the Amiga CD32 was first. For the record, it was an even more colossal failure than the 3DO.

max 330 mega

01-07-2005, 10:56 AM

and then release a home console version of the Atomiswave

You mean...the Dreamcast (http://www.system16.com/other/hrdw_atomiswave.html)? :roll:
well uhh no, because it wouldn't have the same game line up, and has a different button layout, i would hope if they did such a thing (which they wont) they would rework the controller to be more along the lines of a neo geo old or new style stick, and it would also be a cart based system. sure its the same technology, but that doesn't mean i wouldnt fork out the cash all over again for one just to see microsoft and sony fail.

rbudrick

01-07-2005, 11:02 AM

Keir

01-07-2005, 11:33 AM

It seems to me that the system with the most games for it usually does the best. Never mind if 95% of the games are complete crap. Ok, maybe 95% is harsh, but you get the idea. Look at the 2600, NES, Gameboy (and all its versions), PS, PS2. Genesis and SNES were pretty neck and neck. IMO, this is because they had a pretty similar amount of games.

Anybody else have a stance on this?

-Rob
That's a good point, but it seems like a chicken and egg thing. Were they successful because they had more games or did they have more games because they were successful?

Nature Boy

01-07-2005, 05:03 PM

Sony continues to sell their PS2 system at an extremely high clip, so you think to yourself, why mess with a good thing? Why screw with anything? Just work on the PS3 and keep it ready, keep it totally cutting edge, and see what the other guys do first.

You *cannot* do this. Consoles take *years* to develop (which is why they're working on them *NOW*). It's not a PC - you can't just keep tweaking it at the last minute to keep it 'cutting edge' and a step up on your competition. You've got to plan for what you want (and plan knowing/guessing what your competition will come up with) and then build to that spec. How would you ever have any launch titles if you kept changing the hardware on the developers? Remember, it also takes *years* to create games these days!

Nature Boy

01-07-2005, 05:07 PM

It seems to me that the system with the most games for it usually does the best. Never mind if 95% of the games are complete crap. Ok, maybe 95% is harsh, but you get the idea. Look at the 2600, NES, Gameboy (and all its versions), PS, PS2. Genesis and SNES were pretty neck and neck. IMO, this is because they had a pretty similar amount of games.

Anybody else have a stance on this?

Actually, I think it's the system that does the best that has more companies making games for it. None of those systems had large libraries *first* - they built up their image and consumers and developers followed suit.

rbudrick

01-07-2005, 05:59 PM

That's a good point, but it seems like a chicken and egg thing. Were they successful because they had more games or did they have more games because they were successful?

Well, I've thought of that, and I was going to say that but forgot. And you could be right! However, if you flood the market with games, good or not, they will be in your face more (just sign on any old third parties that come along...who cares if they suck and have low budgets!?). This creates more marketing $ coming in allowing you to fuel more games and more marketing.More games=more shelf space in stores.

The more games you have, the more successful you will be, imo because of this.
-Rob

RCM

01-07-2005, 07:18 PM

Promophile

01-07-2005, 08:24 PM

Anthony1

01-08-2005, 12:44 AM

Ed Oscuro

01-08-2005, 01:22 AM

Did the Atari 7800 come out before the NES? Wasn't the Atari 7800 basically a 8 bit system, somewhat similar to the NES?
First-last comparisons...why? If the 7800 had time to build up a library against the NES, things would've been different, right? Oh wait, there was that whole "Atari's going down the tubes" thing to deal with. Of course time is a factor in every competition; that's why Nintendo made sure to release the DS before the PSP. Whether the DS is helped or harmed by that early release...that's a human factor and that must be an alien concept to this kind of reasoning.

All we have to do is show you one case where this prediction didn't turn out the way this theory (which I thought after reading your first post you didn't really believe, but now I'm not so sure) says it should, and ZAP, it's no longer valid. So why are you still arguing about it?

It'd be like if somebody went out into the desert and saw God sticking little fish bones in the sand. ZAP, there goes the classical theory of the origin of species. LOL This isn't exactly high-level debate, Anthony. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is more to a console's success or failure, and why you keep referring to this label as if it's a plausible theory is beyond me.

Or maybe you aren't arguing these things...choice of words has confused the hell outta me. In any case, pick your favorite horse and put your money down, it's all the same. We'll only know the outcome when it's all over! :drinking:

I'm down with the discussion, as always...but I think we're all ready to move onto the next level ;)

crazyjackcsa

01-08-2005, 08:34 AM

There are all sorts of various factors and theories. Sometimes first to the market is good, dometimes it isn't. (Comparing the big names here) The Genny did okay and so did the gameboy. Those were still first (well not really, but you know what I mean) These days it's all Sony and I think for a long time it always will be. In the DC case it prepared a lot of people for this generation. It kind agot caught in between generations. It's a crap shoot really.

ubersaurus

01-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Gameboy came out first. NES came out first and jump started the industry again. Genesis was the first true 16 bit system and it was success. If Sony had come out first with the PS2 it would have still been a huge success. Lets get real.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

Did the Atari 7800 come out before the NES? Wasn't the Atari 7800 basically a 8 bit system, somewhat similar to the NES?

As for Genesis, the TG-16 was the first 16 bit machine. Sure, it isn't a "true" 16 bit machine, but it was advertised and promoted as such. Before the arrival of the SNES, the TG-16 and Genesis were the two choices a gamer had for a 16 bit system.

The Dreamcast was part of the whole PS2, XBOX, GameCube generation, and the Dreamcast was first out the box.

7800 came out like a year after the NES. It was supposed to be out in 84, but Atari was kinda in a shitstorm by that time, and even when it came out, it didn't supported much at all. Unless you go by japanese dates, in which case the Famicom came out in 1983-a year before the 7800 was supposed to launch anyway.

Dreamcast lost partly from Sega's bad rep, and partly Sony's PS2-hype machine. Everyone I knew who had one thought it was the best damn system they've ever played, and didn't understand why anyone would want to wait for a system that didn't have anything really out for it for another year. They, in turn, wanted a DVD player, so I guess that kinda screwed sega over.

Saturn lost for a myriad of reasons, because Sega burned many retailers, because lots of good games stayed in Japan, because Sega of America made a number of boneheaded decisions, the whole 32X thing, and so forth. By the time you get to the part where it's 3d skills were inferior, it already looked as though you weren't getting one anyway.

A much more interesting trend is how it always seems to be the most underpowered machine is the most dominate-2600, NES, Playstation, PS2, Game boy, and to an extent, the genesis(SNES closed that gap pretty good), they've always been the ones to win the market. And I'd say it was their 3rd party support that did it.

Anthony1

01-08-2005, 03:05 PM

Ed Oscuro - Hey, calm down dude. I'm just messing around. I totally understand that it is more of a coincidence than anything.

I understand that.

But coincidence or not, it still seems to be holding true, at least in recent gaming cycles.

Does it really mean anything significant?

No.

But still, it's fun to discuss. At least it was until you showed up. Just Kidding!

Anyways, part of the reason that I bring up this whole entire topic is that there seems to be this feeling out there, that Microsoft thinks things would have been different, if they came out before the PS2, and thus in this next console fight, they are determined to come out before PS3, and not have to play catch up again.

Personally, I think that this is a very stupid and ignorant line of thinking. I honestly think its a very bad idea to be first. You better have your crap together 100 percent if you are going to come out first, because the competitors are going to be able to analyze what you have, and improve on that, and make sure they are better than that.

So if Microsoft thinks that coming out first will guarantee a win for them, they are in for a rude awakening.

RCM

01-08-2005, 05:37 PM

Anyways, part of the reason that I bring up this whole entire topic is that there seems to be this feeling out there, that Microsoft thinks things would have been different, if they came out before the PS2, and thus in this next console fight, they are determined to come out before PS3, and not have to play catch up again.

Xbox came out over a year after PS2 in the states. Same with Gamecube. N64 came out over a year after PS.

The point in coming out first or around the same time as PS3 is to make sure Sony doesnt have the market to themselves. Microsoft is in a great position to challenge Sony's dominance.

Xbox 2 will be the first legit competitor to Sony's home console crown since the N64. Hopefully X2 will do a bit better than the N64 did.

I don't love or hate Sony. It's no good when one console dominates the market. Sony has to be taken down a notch!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

theoakwoody

01-09-2005, 01:57 AM

I'll try to stay on topic here but let me start by saying this:

Why is everyone here under the impression that Nintendo is dying slowly? Is it because they are not selling as many systems as Sony? Well guess what? It doesn't really matter because they are still making a lot of money. True they don't have as many third party developers as Microsoft and Sony but they will always have their niche and their fanboys. They are not in the same situation as Sega was when they brought out the dreamcast so Nintendo's next system will succeed imo even if it doesn't sell a third of the system's that sony's sell. The video game industry is big enough for 3 players and Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo will stay in the industry for a long time and eventually maybe there will be others life GE or some other electronics giant.

Okay back on topic. I think Xbox 2 will be the first of the next generation systems out because they want to beat Sony to the market and Nintendo is always pushing back their release dates. Nintendo will release their system next followed by the PS3. I think that Microsoft is going to go to extremes like we've never seen before to hype up their next console. I'm talking air time that rivals the presidential campaign ads that were on this last October. Every other commercial is going to be about Xbox, every bus stop, billboard, popup ad, and magazine ad will urge you to buy the shiny new system. Microsoft will do whatever it takes to outdo Sony and I think they will win the next console war. I think the success of Microsoft will force Sony to release their system earlier than they want to which will cause problems for them. Nintendo will be a distant third and will continue to be a niche system for kids and fanboys alike. Don't get me wrong, I prefer nintendo to Microsoft or Sony but I guess I'm still a kid/fanboy.

demented-yoshi

01-09-2005, 02:51 PM

I think that Nintendo is dying because they Don't have anything else except videogames pulling in their income look at sony and microsoft I'm pretty sure they make peanuts off of consoles.

Personally I Don't see why you would want a company to live or die remeber they don't care about you they are all after your money no company does last forever.Look at the Bay they are the oldest company in the world to be around and target is trying to aquire them.

I don't want a new console I'm happy with what I got now so if Nintendo's releasing their new console first they can shove their revolution up their ass cause they ain't getting my money.

EricRyan34

01-09-2005, 02:59 PM

I have never heard of such a thing

vincewy

01-09-2005, 06:16 PM

My opinion on why the Dreamcast fell, and the reason I didn't buy it, was because I was totally pissed at Sega for what happened with the Saturn, as were most people that had owned only a Saturn at the time. I remeber the pages and pages of hate Sega got for it in all the gaming mags.

Actually back further, it was 32X, I recall many Sega fans were bitter when Sega release Saturn first in Japan (a market w/o any support), instead we got crap mushroom gadget. Granted Sega CD and many accessories they made leave many gamers with bad taste in the mouth, 32X/CD and all the experiments with FMV (the acting was atrocious) pretty much killed Sega.

This however, makes Dreamcast a great collector's system, no EA games, cheap to stock up games (it may not be like this forever), there're still games made for Japanese market.

RCM

01-09-2005, 10:28 PM

Why is everyone here under the impression that Nintendo is dying slowly? Is it because they are not selling as many systems as Sony?

Nintendo keeps losing market share. If it wasn't for the GBA Nintendo would be hurting right now. If Nintendo doesn't deliver the goods in the next console war they're screwed. Also, Their handheld marketshare will be cut down a bit once the PSP arrives. Believe it!

Nintendo's next system will succeed imo even if it doesn't sell a third of the system's that sony's sell.

I don't agree with you and i'm pretty sure that Nintendo won't view the Revolution as a success if has an inferior installed base compared to the other consoles.

The video game industry is big enough for 3 players and Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo will stay in the industry for a long time

From the way it looks now you're right. Microsoft and Sony will be around for a while. Nintendo will too but in what form? Their handheld marketshare will shrink from the PSP. If they don't start performing better in the home I could see Nintendo going third pary. No shame in that.

Nintendo is always pushing back their release dates

That's been true in the past. They did much better with the DS launch though.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

alexkidd2000

01-10-2005, 02:40 AM

Well i will be buying which ever system comes out first. I am tired of this generation and I want a system that fully supports 1080i. Bring on the Next Gen!

Nature Boy

01-10-2005, 12:34 PM

In the DC case it prepared a lot of people for this generation.

This got me thinking. You know the argument: Pepsi isn't successful if they don't have Coke to compete against (and vice versa). With nobody for the DC to compete against in the current generation, maybe it hurt them?

Speaking for myself only, the DC never really hit my radar. At the time I wasn't planning on buying more than 1 next gen console, and I wanted to see what the competition is gonna be like before making my decision.

Which isn't to say they couldn't have released the DC first, just that they should've released it closer to the PS2 release date (maybe beat it by a month or so, then advertise heavily when Sony can't meet consumer demands).