When Consoles Lose, Everyone Wins 100
Ground Glass writes "Does the traditional knowledge that 'history is written by the winners' hold true with consoles? Perhaps, but there's more to it than that. Sometimes, systems that fail do so because their most salient concept was one no one was ready for - these provide future 'innovations'. Sometimes their loudest message was one only a niche group would ever want to listen to - they provide much needed perspective. In an early medium, the failures are the ones questioning what a game should be. It's no wonder the winners keep writing their ideas back in."
Everything Evolves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everything Evolves (Score:1)
Dreamcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Insightful)
And PS3. Gran Turismo 5 - The AI still sucks, Metal Gear Movie 56, now with 3 minutes of actual game, Generic FPS everyone wets themselves over 105, hillarious gore instead of gameplay 12, Rainbow 6 "6".
Wow, that was boring.
(Note - I don't believe any of this. Just illustrating how stupid the parent post really is)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps as a first party feature, but online gaming was available during the SNES/Genesis era. Xband [wikipedia.org] was released in the US in 1994.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
heck, just auto-wikipedia any proper noun I use. make it easier.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I'm sure piracy was a HUGE factor, just like it was in bringing down the recording industry when cassettes became standard and everyone could copy songs freely. I'm so sick of people immeditately blaming piracy for the downfall of this or that product just because it's become fashionable with the RIAA and the MPAA -- there's no evidence that piracy has truly ever hurt any market. I think if it did MS wouldn't be a powerful corporation because Windows was pirated a great deal even before 3.1 days and their target market was much smaller. So consider that: if piracy hurts businesses so much, how did Microsoft survive when Windows and Office were pirated so much and their target market was much, much smaller in those days?
From what I've heard over the years one of the problems the Dreamcast had is that it was made by Sega, and developing games for it was too costly because they got too greedy. I don't know for sure because I wasn't there but I've heard it too many times from different sources to just ignore it. Sucks, because I wanted one. I wish it hadn't been like that because I think console tech would be at a higher level now than it is, but of course, this is a matter of speculation.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
actually, piracy could be said to have HELPED windows. It could be argued that the largest share of sales for office and windows is from corporate licensing- massive piracy of windows on the consumer end only helped to drive up marketshare so that companies had almost no choice but to go with windows and office as it was "what everyone was using."
It doesn't make sense to crack down on every joe and jane who makes a copy of windows to use at home, but there's BIG money in pursuing licenses from corporate c
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
So again, piracy definitely had a role in the DC's fall, especially considering that it required no modding.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
And site licensing, and service contracts. (For software used by businesses, not so much for games.)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, no no, it wasn't that hard. All you have to do is burn a CD. That's all. Granted, the format is *slightly* unusual, but you can burn a working DC disc using cdrecord quite easily. This is one of the reasons why it's such a fantastic homebrew platform (I picked up a used one just for that reason).
However, the DC also supported a weird hybrid CD w
Piracy drove off (Score:2)
Re:Piracy drove off (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
The biggest problem the dreamcast had was the same problem that killed off the Saturn, 32X, Sega CD, Genesis and Master System.
Being produced by Sega. Sega so often brought better technology to market but fucked up the advantage that they had. The NES murdered the Master System because Nintendo understood the importance of getting good game franchises. The Genesis beat the SNES to market by well over a year and could
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
In Australia, certainly in the area I grew up, it was almost exactly the reverse. Sega dominated here, and almost nobody I knew owned a Nintendo.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2, Funny)
LK
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
The Saturn had superior 2D to the PS1, but its 3D was crap. In t
Re:Dreamcast (Score:1)
LK
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Madden, et cetera (Score:1)
It also means that there's no reason why these sports games can't offer new rosters as downloadable conten
Re:Madden, et cetera (Score:2)
On Nintendo's side... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:5, Funny)
I want a PipBoy 2000.
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:2)
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:1)
I've played my Virtual Boy for extended periods since I bought the thing (I always turn off the 'this game will pause every fifteen minutes so you can go look at something else' feature), and I have yet to experience my first headache because
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:2)
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:2)
Re:On Nintendo's side... (Score:2)
Right now, Nintendo is poised to release the Power Glove again (the Wii-mote). But while you know it's the same idea, you also know that technology and design have improved to the point where it won't suck this time. So there's a recycle period of approximately 18 years (3 console generations). The Virtual Boy was released in 1995. We've had the GBA and DS since then (portables only, since the VB was supposed to be the next-big-thing for portable games). So we need o
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Was this submitted by Nietzsche?
Re:What? (Score:2, Funny)
--The Dead
Re:What? (Score:1)
"Eva"? Who's "Eva" ? (Score:2, Interesting)
From the more cryptic than usual subtitle up through the ambiguous main title (I thought at first glance this was going to be one of those PC vs. Console flamewar threads), right down into the body of the summary, this whole thing is incomprehensible.
Ever since that whole "Carnival of Games" debacle I have upheld that Zonk posts certain stories because he's either lost a bet or is banging the submitter. Even the blatant slashvertisements manage to slide through here wi
Just goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:1, Insightful)
It may be inflamatory to say true things to people, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true. Sony is hopelessly arrogant about the PS3, Blu-ray has proven t
Uh, insightful troll? (Score:2)
Claiming to speak for "most people" as an AC? Needling the straw man of PS3 fanboys? Insight isn't what it used to be.
(For that matter, the original post here is in a deep muddle. The headline about "when consoles lose" implies that consoles as a whole should go down, not that failures in the business often seed future development.)
There is good news, it's just not reported (Score:2)
None of them ever made it to Slashdot.
It's pretty easy to understand your ignorance however, if all you read is Slashdot games then the primary view you'd have of the PS3 would be negative. If however you broaden your console reading to other sources you can find positive material for all three consoles.
There's nothing wrong with reporting neagitve stories; I welcome negative stories about any console, as it can be help
The purpose of underdogs? (Score:5, Interesting)
In any established industry (as the videogame industry has become) there are market leaders with enough 'mindshare', and enough resources, to adapt innovations for their next release. As large companies, and given the nature of consoles, they are not likely to take a big risk with a major release (as stated in the article). Other, small, companies take those risks, and the next generation of major consoles will incorporate some of those innovations. This is just like a lot of industries -- look at the airline industry and how most of the large airlines now have regional affiliates modeled on JetBlue's pricing and service.
What's important to note, though, is that the Wii (which, in the end, is the focus of the article) doesn't fit the bill as well as the author would like. Nintendo is not a new, small company taking a risk by innovating. Nintendo is a former giant that that still commands a loyal following, yet is now more agile than its main competitors. What Nintendo has recognized is that there is no room for three 'major' consoles. So instead they opt to compete at a different level.
Not to knock on the Wii, but it really reminds me of Go-Bots... transformers for people who don't want to spend as much cash. The differences are that they have a following that will continue to love them despite the inferiority of their machine, they have a gimmick to promote interest in the new console (the controller), and the game franchise history they've established will sell consoles and games.
In the end, I think the Wii will be successful -- not because of any innovation, but because of pricing and because Nintendo will stick with the tried-and-true focus on games for kids.
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that with the PS3, Sony is making an assumption that they will be the market leader and then building a console around the question "How can we cash in and also gain leverage into other areas of business with our console that we assume will be #1?"
I think Sony's approach with the PS3 takes their eyes off the prize. Since they already had market domination with the PS2, they started to look elsewhere instead of trying to figure out how to hang onto their dominance. Because of this, I think it is likely that the PS3 will not be the #1 console.
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:3, Insightful)
This brings
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's true. All Nintendo wants to do is ensure that they don't go out of business. They realize that they don't have the resources that MS and Sony have to throw around in research and development. Since both of those will probably out power (statistically) anything Nintendo can through, they're taking the third road, not compete. By flat out removing themselves from the competition, they stay alive. They're attempting to cater to a different brand of
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
I think from what little that I've seen this time around Nintendo will come out on top in this round. I've been a historical Nintendo customer until the PS2. I bought the PS2 mainly for all the FF games that were
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not hardware alone that makes a gaming console. I would say that the games themselves play a bigger role in my purchasing decision. Blue-Ray, HDD's, and all that fancy jazz are, at least in my opinion, just filler attempting to make up for inferior games.
Nintendo will pr
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
Obviously there's more to a system than processor speed, but what is possible for a console game depends a lot of the processer speeds. I would say that a slower console IS inferior[1], because I'm judging by potential (as one has to when the life-cycle isn't complete yet). H
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
But I'd definitely disagree with you on whether better hardware has led to innovation. The bar has been raised, and a lot of the games of yesteryear do not come close to today's games in terms of gameplay. Some places where hardware has led to improvements:
(1) AI -- in a HUGE way
(2) Immersion (partly due to graphics and sound)
(3) Physics (as you mention)
I'll agree that a game hardware system is nothing without games that utilize the hardware. But so much of what we
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is obviously what Nintendo is banking on with the Wii. They can run anything the xbox360 or ps3 can, and probably at a level of detail where consumers can't even tell the difference, especially not on most people's little 25" tube tvs.
The things that make or break consoles, and are intimately tied together, are:
1) ease of development
2) third party support
3) fun games
4) price
The Saturn and Nintendo64 both failed due to #1 and #4, which both led to a failure in #2. The only reason either console "survived" is due to great first party games. However without the 3rd party support, they went on to have problems with their next consoles, the Dreamcast and Gamecube, despite the consoles having entirely adequate processing power and much better developer support.
The Wii looks ready to dominate in all four categories. Processing power hasn't mattered in a long time, and will do nothing for the xbox360 or ps3 if they're missing those 4 things that are actually important.
The PS3 in particular looks ready to fail in all of these categories. It sounds like they've got really crazy and bad hardware, that will be extremely difficult to take advantage of. They've got a ridiculous price, which will make it very hard to gain any market share. Because of those reasons, they will have a lot of trouble getting third party games, and thus will be stuck much like the Saturn and Nintendo64, relying almost entirely on first party games and exclusives to sell the console.
Nintendo will need to do something really stupid to screw up their shot at the title this generation.
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:1)
Never underestimate the ability of a large company to jump the shark despite any free-kicks their competitors may give them.
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
You also forgot to mention that I'm not buying a hi-def tv just to play games on. Heck, at the price that they want for a hi-def tv I'm not going to be buying one for 5-7 years or until the price drops to the $300-$500 for the hi-def tvs. I think that I'm not the only one
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. I have seen absolutely nothing positive about "upgrading" to HD (or flat panel!) so far. Just a lot of risky new technology, both for the flat digital screen and the brand new ultra-restrictive DRM. And they want me to PAY for it. Pay a LOT. No thanks!
And as you point out, much less will I shell out 600$ for a game system that suppo
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:1)
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
how about round, bubbly characters and lots or primary colors [nintendo.co.jp]? does that make it a "kiddie" game? if you say no, think of these things [teletubbies.com]...
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:1)
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
Showing that some round bubbly characters with lots of primary colours are aimed solely at children doesn't mean that all are - that's bad logic. It's like saying that because Lego is made up of colourful bricks that you can put together in different patterns and is aimed at Children, then Tetris must be a "kiddie game".
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:1)
There are many different ways to look at the purpose of a thing. You seem to be identifying the intention of the company which owns the console.
Re:The purpose of underdogs? (Score:2)
The first would be 'purpose' as in 'raison d'etre' -- and the problem with this is that it implies either (1) human characteristics to the console, so that it could determine its purpose, or (2) an omnipotent being or force that determines the destiny of the console.
The second would be 'purpose' as in the intended result of its existence, which is the usage I infer
Print version (Score:1)
the future (Score:4, Interesting)
Sony, on other hand, doesn't even want to admit its box is "a mere console" and it is completely full of expensive new technology that gives it a huge price tag. Worse, it's hard to develop for and its price tag has to be making developers nervous. This probably means more expensive games for a more expensive console.
Sony and Microsoft seem to want to turn the console industry into something else while Nintendo is very happy making boatloads of money doing what it knows best. I don't know about you guys, but I am not in the market for a media center or another PC. Personally, I think the concept of a media center is some sort of corporate attempt to make me pay for a bunch of crap I don't need and won't use. And I definitely do not need another PC, especially one made by Microsoft. If I wanted to play PC games I'd play them on the several thousand dollar computer I already have, not a few hundred dollar console.
Here's my question: if the PS3 flops where will Sony's followers turn? Microsoft? Nintendo? Or will they abandon consoles entirely? I'd like to say they will turn to Nintendo, but I'm not so sure. I'm certain the Wii will do well, but I seriously doubt it can steal Sony's market share back. My fear is that certain developers will turn to developing solely on the XBOX and Nintendo / games / console will become the next Apple / OS X / Mac situation.
Of course, the PS3 is not here so this is all theoretical. Only time will tell if Sony's big investment will pay off, but if it fails I sincerely hope Microsoft does not get put in a position to dominate the console industry the same way it has dominated the OS industry or non-PC games are doomed.
Where the Developers Roam (Score:2, Redundant)
First of all, I had to comment on this line which I thought had some really odd logic behind it - losing money? Throwing it out faster should help!
I believe the old saying goes "throwing good money after bad".
Not that I think the 360 is a bad console but it's gotten there with booster rockets spouting pure money, and it's yet to be seen if ther overall choice to fire the boosters
IF Sony loses... (Score:2)
If it happens, Nintendo wins by default because we know the 360's Japan support is weak. Like it or not, Japan is the driving force of the consoles, Which means in the end it's either Sony or Nintendo. Without a strong Japanese base, the 360 is irrelevant.
Re:IF Sony loses... (Score:1)
Re:Where the Developers Roam (Score:1)
What I'm not sure about is if this isn't predatory pricing. Leveraging a monopoly to sell a product in another market below cost? MS has been convicted of having a monopoly and as such shouldn't be able to legally do that.
R&D though... (Score:2)
I think they are safe from monopoly persecution in this case because they are not a monopoly in the game industry - interestingly there is nothing illegal about using a vast sum of money you have got from a different monopoly to attept to storm a different industry through sheer ability t
Re:R&D though... (Score:1)
The only option to avoid those would be to make no next-gen console at all so the early release didn't hurt it.
On top of that is XBox Silver service offered for free
That doesn't offer many features though. Since silver accounts are used for accessing the marketplace as well that probably brings in more money than it loses.
interestingly there is nothing illegal about using a vast sum of money you have got from a dif
Re:the future (Score:2)
For Nintendo, I don't think it's about market share this time: the rules about owning a given fraction of a market no longer apply when one product is so much less expensive than that of other parties (the XBox and PS3
Waitaminute... (Score:3, Funny)
I guess I'm getting a PS3 after all!
(ducks)
BTW, this comment from the article: 'Who would have ever thought that Mattel's unlikely Power Glove would become a prototype for Nintendo's primary controller?'
Um... everybody? I sure did. It was a freaking VR glove! I swooned when I saw that thing! Like the Wii Remote.... er. oh. hm.
Kinda like Herzog Zwei (Score:1)
Re:Kinda like Herzog Zwei (Score:1)
To add to the discussion, I think a lot of people are holding out for more information from Nintendo. Nintendo does such an AWESOME job of cutting off all knowledge of their system, and itleaves many people screaming for more - its how hype works. Keep people on a trickle of information, and they salivate after every drop. Give it to them all at once, and they fill up and move on to something else.
Those gen
Amigas? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amigas? (Score:2)
Possibly so.
In North America, pretty much the only thing the Amiga line was known for was video editing when attached to a Video Toaster, or for being the source of several badly-ported generic European platform games released for Sega Genesis.
A not-so-subtle dig against the Wii and PS3 (Score:1, Flamebait)
I wonder which console THAT could be...
In fact the 360 is so tried and true they even removed a standard component from the last generation (the hard drive), just to be sure they were totally tried and true.
Re:Hegel (Score:1)