John Carmack: PS4 will be first to market

[DeputyMoniker]

The writing is on the wall, guys. With the PSP Go and 360 games being available in the marketplace, I can't help but think we just entered the "Next-gen Beta." I'll leave the analysis to the business majors...but Sony & MS seem to be looking in the same direction. Seems that infrastructure aside, Nintendo wouldn't have too hard a time moving toward an exclusively DD console. Considering the size of their games, I mean.

EDIT:

The first console of a generation never ends up being #1. 360, Dreamcast, 3DO, Turbografx, none of those were #1 systems. You have to go back to the NES, and that's a very special case, with the crash (and somewhat debatable, since 7800's were sold on a limited basis in '84). Hell, the VCS came after the Channel-F. So given that, why would Sony be in a rush to come out first?

Whoa whoa...stop and think about what you just said.
"Why would Sony..."
Hmm. How can I put this? Sony does stupid shit sometimes. Is that too harsh? ;P

[Icarus Moonsight]

The first console of a generation never ends up being #1. 360, Dreamcast, 3DO, Turbografx, none of those were #1 systems. You have to go back to the NES, and that's a very special case, with the crash (and somewhat debatable, since 7800's were sold on a limited basis in '84). Hell, the VCS came after the Channel-F. So given that, why would Sony be in a rush to come out first?

Because everyone seems to forget the Dreamcast even existed and view the PS2 as a first out winner? Just a theory.

[j_factor]

The writing is on the wall, guys. With the PSP Go and 360 games being available in the marketplace, I can't help but think we just entered the "Next-gen Beta." I'll leave the analysis to the business majors...but Sony & MS seem to be looking in the same direction. Seems that infrastructure aside, Nintendo wouldn't have too hard a time moving toward an exclusively DD console. Considering the size of their games, I mean.

But... what if the PSP Go is a huge flop? What if marketplace sales of 360 retail games fall flat?

Whoa whoa...stop and think about what you just said.
"Why would Sony..."
Hmm. How can I put this? Sony does stupid shit sometimes. Is that too harsh? ;P

I'm not saying Sony definitely won't come out first, I'm just saying John Carmack's reasoning makes no sense.

[DeputyMoniker]

But... what if the PSP Go is a huge flop? What if marketplace sales of 360 retail games fall flat?

I'm no analyst...buuuuut, here's how my theory goes. Regardless the amount of success the Go finds, it has a unique place in the market. In the sense that, in theory, Sony wouldn't have to front a lot of money to get it out there. They should be able to fund it with investment capital that's been allocated toward R&D. So I doubt, in my humble opinion, that Sony is expecting a great deal of retail success from the Go. All that I expect to be gained from its release is knowledge. Where would they plan to use the experience gained? Perhaps their next console. Not only would BlueRay require too much HDD space, but the PS3 has already had a hard time finding any solid ground...so if I am right, the PSP is the only logical place for Sony to play this game. I mean, I think they're reaching the end of its life...so it isn't a great risk. I don't know, I'm just guessing here but it makes sense to me.

As for the 360 games, it isn't much of a risk at all. Either you go buy it on disc, or you download it. Either way, whatever people download will make for an educational experience for Microsoft. This is where it ties in with the Go. Looking toward the future.

I'm not saying Sony definitely won't come out first, I'm just saying John Carmack's reasoning makes no sense.

I was just giving you a hard time and poking, in fun, at Sony.

[j_factor]

I'm no analyst...buuuuut, here's how my theory goes. Regardless the amount of success the Go finds, it has a unique place in the market. In the sense that, in theory, Sony wouldn't have to front a lot of money to get it out there. They should be able to fund it with investment capital that's been allocated toward R&D. So I doubt, in my humble opinion, that Sony is expecting a great deal of retail success from the Go. All that I expect to be gained from its release is knowledge. Where would they plan to use the experience gained? Perhaps their next console. Not only would BlueRay require too much HDD space, but the PS3 has already had a hard time finding any solid ground...so if I am right, the PSP is the only logical place for Sony to play this game. I mean, I think they're reaching the end of its life...so it isn't a great risk. I don't know, I'm just guessing here but it makes sense to me.

As for the 360 games, it isn't much of a risk at all. Either you go buy it on disc, or you download it. Either way, whatever people download will make for an educational experience for Microsoft. This is where it ties in with the Go. Looking toward the future.

Sure, it's not much of a risk. But if it doesn't pan out, I don't see them continuing in that direction with their next console. I think the purpose for both of these is to test the waters of digital distribution, and their success, or lack thereof, will dictate future plans.

[backguard]

No optical media option...I suppose that means downloads and cartridges (flash memory)?

[Nature Boy]

The first console of a generation never ends up being #1. 360, Dreamcast, 3DO, Turbografx, none of those were #1 systems. You have to go back to the NES, and that's a very special case, with the crash (and somewhat debatable, since 7800's were sold on a limited basis in '84). Hell, the VCS came after the Channel-F. So given that, why would Sony be in a rush to come out first?

I'd argue that the 360 would not have enjoyed the success it has if it *wasn't* first out of the gate though, which makes it worth it in MS's eyes (and potentially Sony's looking towards PS4). The whole "who is #1" garbage is mostly fanboy gibberish.

[SegaAges]

I'd argue that the 360 would not have enjoyed the success it has if it *wasn't* first out of the gate though, which makes it worth it in MS's eyes (and potentially Sony's looking towards PS4). The whole "who is #1" garbage is mostly fanboy gibberish.

Not according to sales figures

[Ed Oscuro]

The first console of a generation never ends up being #1. 360, Dreamcast, 3DO, Turbografx, none of those were #1 systems. You have to go back to the NES, and that's a very special case, with the crash (and somewhat debatable, since 7800's were sold on a limited basis in '84). Hell, the VCS came after the Channel-F. So given that, why would Sony be in a rush to come out first?

Genesis was the first in the US; out half a month before the TG-16 (which wasn't a failure in Japan by any means, beating out the Mega Drive).

3DO was a special example of tech before its time, same as the 360 and especially the PS3 with the Cell processing system for that matter.

The Atari 2600 (who remembers what system was called the VES?) wasn't the first, but it might as well have been. Marketing, games, prices...and intangibles.

Really, we can go stupid trying to cobble together coincidential plotlines for history, or we can accept that coincidences don't make hard and fast rules - especially true of video gaming, an industry that has grown and matured considerably from years past.

[j_factor]

Genesis was the first in the US; out half a month before the TG-16 (which wasn't a failure in Japan by any means, beating out the Mega Drive).

3DO was a special example of tech before its time, same as the 360 and especially the PS3 with the Cell processing system for that matter.

The Atari 2600 (who remembers what system was called the VES?) wasn't the first, but it might as well have been. Marketing, games, prices...and intangibles.

Really, we can go stupid trying to cobble together coincidential plotlines for history, or we can accept that coincidences don't make hard and fast rules - especially true of video gaming, an industry that has grown and matured considerably from years past.

I thought Genesis was only available before TG16 in New York and LA; in the rest of the country, it came after. Anyway it's not a hard and fast rule, but considering what has happened so far, I don't see any reason to believe that coming out first is a big advantage. I think its comparatively early release really hindered Dreamcast in particular.

[Ed Oscuro]

Anyway it's not a hard and fast rule, but considering what has happened so far, I don't see any reason to believe that coming out first is a big advantage.

First it's a killer, now, just not a big advantage. Making progress all the time!

Anyhow, we'll have to see if Sony and MS persist in staking their businesses on escalating the high-def war as they have in the past. Rather surprised Sony never managed to do anything of note with this.

[j_factor]

First it's a killer, now, just not a big advantage. Making progress all the time!

I never said it was a killer, not sure where you got that from. I was commenting on John Carmack's reasoning, which seemed to be predicated on the notion that coming out first would be a big advantage. I don't think the track record of first-out-the-gate systems suggests this to be the case.

[Sonicwolf]

I never said it was a killer, not sure where you got that from. I was commenting on John Carmack's reasoning, which seemed to be predicated on the notion that coming out first would be a big advantage. I don't think the track record of first-out-the-gate systems suggests this to be the case.

Exactly. It seems to be historically proven that systems that are earliest out of the gate for each generation rarely become king of the castle. The 3DO, Amiga CD32, Jaguar and Dreamcast all tried to one-up the major competition by preempting a release and they all flopped.

[Ed Oscuro]

I never said it was a killer, not sure where you got that from.

Nowhere too mysterious:

The first console of a generation never ends up being #1.

Exactly. It seems to be historically proven that systems that are earliest out of the gate for each generation rarely become king of the castle. The 3DO, Amiga CD32, Jaguar and Dreamcast all tried to one-up the major competition by preempting a release and they all flopped.

Missing the more important, if subtle, point that 3DO, CD-32, and CD-i were all pushing a technology before it was really mature. ALL of those systems were failures. Jaguar had design issues and poor marketing from a company that was already dying - its failure can't be sensibly blamed on its being first to market.

Of those examples, only the Dreamcast really fits this forced paradigm, but I think that's mainly the force of Sega's prior history and that of its competitors coming to bear. It failed in part due to this thinking, which we've all been stewing in since the end of the last decade, not so much because it was mistimed. Sony, MS and N couldn't have cooked up a better ad campaign than the arguments that better stuff was just around the corner. We've also had mentioned a couple of the DC's peculiar design flaws - the crappy nonstandard small disc format didn't really help it out.

I would argue that, if we can expand our minds (gentlemen!), Valve's Steam platform is essentially a new console (it has essentially replaced buying a games console for me), and being first sure hasn't hurt it. Sometimes you NEED to be first to market (that, of course, is a major underpinning of the whole philosophy driving Sony and MS loss-leader strategy lately).

[Nature Boy]

It seems to be historically proven that systems that are earliest out of the gate for each generation rarely become king of the castle.

The reason for going first *isn't* to become king of the castle necessarily though. It's to maximize the number of units sold.

Other factors come into a purchasing decision to be sure (like price), but when your target market is looking to buy a console and you're the only 'next gen' machine currently available, you'll sell more units by default.

Imagine the PS3 and 360 going to market after the Wii. That absolutely would have affected 360 sales. They just wouldn't have sold as many units, because some consumers would have bought a Wii instead.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Yes, the producer of the first new product enjoys a monopoly on the new (next-gen) market. It's a cinch 100% share until your competition joins in. This does not imply that the tactic is always advantageous. Things can still fail (as in generate a loss) even in a monopoly environment. It's simply a valid premise to base a market strategy on.

[j_factor]

On the other hand, early adopters are by far the minority. Most people wait until the new generation is clearly established before making the switch. More Playstations were sold after the Saturn's death, than Playstation and Saturn sales combined during the time they were both on the market.

[Sonicwolf]

its failure can't be sensibly blamed on its being first to market.

I think in 1993 people were still pretty comfortable with the 16 bit era consoles which would have damaged the sales of the Jaguar.

[Icarus Moonsight]

On the other hand, early adopters are by far the minority. Most people wait until the new generation is clearly established before making the switch. More Playstations were sold after the Saturn's death, than Playstation and Saturn sales combined during the time they were both on the market.

Not always, it's a case by case issue. The only thing we can say for certain in the Saturn vs Playstation case related to this topic is that all sales of that generations systems by default went to Sega, until Sony started competing with them. If the products were equally desirable, then the Saturn would have easily sold more units for the fact that they were out first and at market longer. Consumer demand determines were the market heads, not the designs and strategies of the producers. This is why Sony enjoyed a huge majority market share until the launch of the N64. After which, they managed to hold a majority share. In other words, Sony got it right. As a Sega fanatic, it still hurts to have to admit that.

Profit is a signal. It screams, "There is money to be made here, join in, or lose out!" Sega made the mistake of competing in the 32bit market, alone, with multiple concurrent products. Competition drives down prices so, in this manner, they ate up their own potential monopoly advantage. The Saturn price point of $400 (nice catch Rob!) probably didn't help them much... Basically, they spread themselves too thin. Like placing an equal bet on every field of a roulette table. Even it you hit it huge with a Ought or Double Ought, you still loose because you lost more than the big win on all the other bets. In Sega's case, they missed the Oughts completely. So the damage was even more severe than would have been in the case of a best possible outcome.

Conversely, in the current situation if all three console were still as they are and the release order were swapped between the PS3 and 360. It would be a Wii/PS3 market, rather than a Wii/360. Microsoft hit the Oughts in other words ('out-first' and healthy demand during this time helped cushion the blow of RRoD).

[Ed Oscuro]

The reason for going first *isn't* to become king of the castle necessarily though. It's to maximize the number of units sold.

You don't maximize the installed base by letting another company sell their competing product and saturate your target market. Those are not separate goals, and this quote is bizarre.