Can a company really support 2 systems simultaneously?

[Anthony1]

Here is the full question:


Can a major company like Microsoft or Nintendo or Sony really support 2 "home" consoles simultaneously? And when I say support, I don't mean "token" support. I mean real support. I mean new games streaming out on a continued basis for the older of the systems, and a steady production run of the actual unit.

Companies have claimed that they could support more than one "home" console at a time, but usually it was just lip service at best, and it was all related towards marketing and clearing out the remaining stock.

How many times did Tom Kalinske talk about Sega supporting a number of platforms simultaneously. I mean he talked about how they were going to still support the Genesis, Sega CD and 32X, even with the Saturn about to launch. The Genesis was still supported, but not really by Sega, more by 3rd parties who were still selling sports updates to the low income families that couldn't afford a Playstation or Saturn or 3DO or Jaguar or N64. The Sega CD had already basically been abandoned, and it was about to die a painfull death, and the 32X obviously was never really in the long term plans for Sega.

So, certainly, companies have talked about supporting more than one home console at a time, but I don't think it's ever happened, except for token support, more for marketing reasons and not to piss off their customer base while a transition was under way.

The reason that I bring all of this up, is the fact that Microsoft is going to release the XBOX 360 later this year, likely in November. The XBOX is still a very viable platform, and there are millions of XBOX owners in the U.S. and in other countries, and you certainly can't expect that Microsoft is just going to totally abandon these customers. There are also many people that will be interested in buying new XBOX 1 systems during the holidays in 2005 and 2006, and even 2007.

But one of the huge questions that must be considered, is the fact that even today Microsoft is loosing some money on every XBOX sold, and with them moving forward with a new platform and the fact that they are losing a small amount on every XBOX sold at $150, the thought then turns to whether or not Microsoft would actually consider stopping production of new XBOX 1 systems?

I think they will definitely continue to release new games, probably all the way into 2007, although the number of games that they release will certainly dip quite dramatically.

But there really isn't a huge incentive for them to continue to produce the XBOX 1. One possibility is that they will continue to produce XBOX 1 systems, but that they will do so in a very limited quantity, and that they could even actually raise the price from $150, so that they are at least breaking even on the transaction.

There could be some consumer backlash towards that, but Microsoft could simply explain the situation, that there isn't any incentive for them to continue to make XBOX 1 systems at a loss, when they have conceded this generation to Sony. They had to subsidize the system while they were still fighting Sony for market share, but once they conceded this current generation and actually had a next generation product on store shelves available for purchase, there wouldn't be any incentive to continue to subsidize the old machine.

If this type of situation were to unfold in this manner, would it be the first time that a home console has actually increased in price?

Hmmm. It's going to be quite interesting to see how this whole situation is handled.

[Exo]

The playstation one was still supported during the playstation 2's life span. It wasn't the biggest support but it was still there. Its do able just don't expect for the old system to as good as it did in its prime.

[Anthony1]

The playstation one was still supported during the playstation 2's life span. It wasn't the biggest support but it was still there. Its do able just don't expect for the old system to as good as it did in its prime.


Sony continued to manufacture PS1 systems, and continues to sell them even today, but they really didn't support the system with much first party software after the PS2 was launched.

Part of the reason that they continued to sell PS1 systems was because the re-design of the system allowed them to actually make a small profit on each system sold. Also, they knew that 3rd party companies were interested in continuing support of the system with a steady trickle of games, again, targeted at low income families that didn't have the finances to justify a purchase of a Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX or GameCube.

But having said all of that, Sony didn't really support the PS1 much from the software side of the coin after the PS2 hit the scene.

[FurinkanianFrood]

Sony continued to manufacture PS1 systems, and continues to sell them even today, but they really didn't support the system with much first party software after the PS2 was launched.


Yeah, it really depends on what support means. Hardware? 1st party software? Official software?

Didn't Dead of the Brain 1+2 (on PCE) come out in 1999, after it's (spectaculary bombing yet lovable) successor had it's plug pulled?

Nintendo kept making the newer type Famicom and SFC until around the time the GC showed up if I remember correctly.

Famicom games (legit ones I mean, the pirates never stop) were still made for several years time after the SFC showed up, but not as many of course.

Didn't the disk system support not fully shut down until the late 90's or so?

And also Satellaview on SFC I believe.

If the question is: can two systems (one a successor to the other) get similar levels of software support? Then no. Not likely anyway.

A successor can have less support than the previous system still has though.... such as PCE+PCFX, VCS+5200 etc.

So, basically, I would say only token support, at least in the manner I define it (development priority parity).

[christianscott27]

this is what annoys me about the headlong rush into a new console generation. right now xbox holds the clear lead in terms of system power and has to be gaining market share with all the xboxlive halo love out there. i dont see what they stand to gain by being the first out with a new machine. i know i'm not hankering to spend $300 on a new machine so i can play a handful of $50 launch titles. i'll be interested to see what happens to xboxlive after the new xbox system comes out. if they keep supporting the xbox1 for awhile it'll be alright but i get the feeling they'll try and push everyone to upgrade. xbox gaming has always been about super-impressive cutting edge big titles, i dont think it'll survive on a drip feed of budget titles like the PS1 did.

[Archenemy]

AFAIR Nintendo continued to produce NES games while the SNES was begining to shine, and GBC games continued to be produced until two or three years ago, a few years after the GBA was introduced.

But, from a finantial point of view, it simply does not make sense to keep two systems at the same time, mainly because customers will likely buy the newer one and the mainstream always goes for the newest stuff. That's how it has always gone. Life is a bitch and then you die. :(

[TheHammerGod]

It makes sense for a company to focus on the newer hardware, that is the point of releasing it after all. This whole Microsoft situation is crazy fast and it will be interesting to see how the public reacts.

*** Off topic ***

Just a quick note of praise to Anthony1 for an excellent starting topic post. I almost did not click on the topic expecting another "See topic and reply" type of post but instead it was a well thought out post explaining what he was asking and giving good examples as well.

Plus, he even used paragraphs! Shocking! Good job man.

[gepeto]

Whether or not microsoft releases before or after sony they will still have to contend with the sony brand. I really believe they should wait because once it is released it is too late to say we should have put that in and to be quite honest I can't see how next gen system power will wow me. I have pc a with about as much power as one can have and I am still not wowed by the power. It will all come down to software marketing and price point. They should wait until next year. The xbox is putting out its best games with still more to come. I say bad move.

[PapaStu]

The playstation one was still supported during the playstation 2's life span. It wasn't the biggest support but it was still there. Its do able just don't expect for the old system to as good as it did in its prime.


Sony continued to manufacture PS1 systems, and continues to sell them even today, but they really didn't support the system with much first party software after the PS2 was launched.

Part of the reason that they continued to sell PS1 systems was because the re-design of the system allowed them to actually make a small profit on each system sold. Also, they knew that 3rd party companies were interested in continuing support of the system with a steady trickle of games, again, targeted at low income families that didn't have the finances to justify a purchase of a Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX or GameCube.

But having said all of that, Sony didn't really support the PS1 much from the software side of the coin after the PS2 hit the scene.

They didnt support the software much after its release.... Lets do some math shall we. PS2 launched in Sept 01 and the Final PSOne game released in Oct of 2004. No We didnt continue to see support for another 3 full years. :/

A steady trickle is still support (and it was only a trickle the last year or so) and if nothing else licensing dropped to next to nothing so that even MORE could be released for the system. Even now Sony is still selling MILLIONS of PSOne's in America (last numbers I heard from a Playstation head honcho when, asked face to face by Dangerboy and myself was something close to 4 million units had been sold in America alone in 2004). Hell Sony Japan even wanted to stop production (to turn it towards the PS2 line) but they were still selling too well over here to not continue the line.

[Anthony1]

The playstation one was still supported during the playstation 2's life span. It wasn't the biggest support but it was still there. Its do able just don't expect for the old system to as good as it did in its prime.


Sony continued to manufacture PS1 systems, and continues to sell them even today, but they really didn't support the system with much first party software after the PS2 was launched.

Part of the reason that they continued to sell PS1 systems was because the re-design of the system allowed them to actually make a small profit on each system sold. Also, they knew that 3rd party companies were interested in continuing support of the system with a steady trickle of games, again, targeted at low income families that didn't have the finances to justify a purchase of a Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX or GameCube.

But having said all of that, Sony didn't really support the PS1 much from the software side of the coin after the PS2 hit the scene.

They didnt support the software much after its release.... Lets do some math shall we. PS2 launched in Sept 01 and the Final PSOne game released in Oct of 2004. No We didnt continue to see support for another 3 full years. :/

A steady trickle is still support (and it was only a trickle the last year or so) and if nothing else licensing dropped to next to nothing so that even MORE could be released for the system. Even now Sony is still selling MILLIONS of PSOne's in America (last numbers I heard from a Playstation head honcho when, asked face to face by Dangerboy and myself was something close to 4 million units had been sold in America alone in 2004). Hell Sony Japan even wanted to stop production (to turn it towards the PS2 line) but they were still selling too well over here to not continue the line.



I said that Sony didn't support it with software, but the 3rd parties sure as hell did. Sony, from a first party standpoint only had a game here and a game there, most of the games came from 3rd parties after the PS2 was released.

[Damon Plus]

Sega was supporting the Genesis, Master System, Game Gear, Saturn, Sega CD and 32X on 1994-95 (worldwide speaking, of course). The 2 last ones didn´t get too much games, but I´d say yes, a company can give support to more than one system.

[goatdan]

All right, I'm going to take on this one for a minute here:

Before we can look at if Microsoft will or will not continue supporting the original Xbox, we need to look at why they are releasing this new console to begin with. Someone pointed out that they currently have the best hardware on the market, and they are really raising the profile of Xbox Live. So why bother spending the money on a new console release?

Because Microsoft wants their console in everyone's home, and they realize that there is already too much of an installed userbase of PS2's to overcome them and get people to buy the Xbox also. So the answer? Be the first to market with the next generation of consoles.

Will all support of the Xbox stop at that point? No. Not unless Microsoft wants to kill a lot of loyalty immediately. They have Xbox Live, and Xbox Live is a subscription based set up. If they stopped support, all those people who are paying for Xbox Live would feel ripped off, and a lot less likely to pay for another round of MS.

Will they start slowing production of consoles and games? Absolutely. The demand for the Xbox is (was) high because of games like Halo 2 and so on. That popularity is coming back into line, and you can now find Xbox consoles again. If Microsoft stops making games for it, the demand for new consoles is going to stop. So the support that the Xbox gets from a software standpoint will mirror the production life of the console -- in other words, Microsoft won't stop production of the Xbox before the games stop coming out. As was already pointed out, Sony still sells enough PSOnes to warrant keeping that line up. Expect Microsoft to follow that lead.

And the software will stick longer if the new system is backwards compatible. That way, a new game can be sold to two markets and not overshadow the "power" of the new system. If it isn't, it will stick around for a year or so while releases trickle out and eventually go dry.

We will all have to wait and see how this gamble pays off for Microsoft. It could lead them right to the place they want to be -- the top of the video game world -- or it could blow up in their face. One thing is certain -- it should be a very interesting E3 in a month or two!


If this type of situation were to unfold in this manner, would it be the first time that a home console has actually increased in price?

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. A new Jaguar CD can sell for $200 now on eBay.

[kainemaxwell]

I would think if the company is large enough itself to release its own games for both consoles and there's enough third party support, without few games coming out by companies every few months, I'd say they are.

[Griking]

Nintendo has been supporting their home consoles and the Gameboy at the same time for many years now so I see no reason why it couldn't be done.

[SirDrexl]

That's a good point-maybe Microsoft can support 2 systems since they don't have any portables.

One thing that I think could be a factor in helping the Xbox still get some support is that since the other consoles won't be released until next year, there will be third-party titles throughout this year and the next for PS2. So, ports of many of those games will probably still get released for Xbox. From what I've seen of the 360's tentative launch lineup, several of the third-party games are going to have Xbox versions as well because there will also be PS2 versions. So, even though the first- and second-party development will shift to 360, there will still be titles for Xbox, even if most of them are ports of PS2 titles.

PapaStu, I think the PS2 launched in the US in October of 2000, didn't it?

[SoulBlazer]

IS the PSOne still made in the States? I used to see them in the stores last year, but nothing for about a year now. I figured production stopped at the same time the last PSOne games came out.