Topic: Fanboyism, or Cutting off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

[wandering]

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=26031

[Plugabugz]

People people people. You've not lived until you've tried Morley's. Pity i have only ever seen them in south london.

[NWR_Lindy]

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

[NWR_insanolord]

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

I'm going to not pay attention to any of the (mostly) good points in this post and instead bash Silks for (probably accidentally) implying that the Genesis was a failed console.

[Nick DiMola]

Silks, I can't say I agree with you all the time, but I fully agree with you here. Anyone debating that Microsoft and Sony will be leaving gaming any time soon is crazy. They will modify their strategy to some degree next generation and figure out a way to stay competitive. I don't think either of them will go the way of Sega, seeing as management of their consoles and brands was handled quite poorly.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I don't think they'll leave the industry.  They'll just continue their failure trend, and fail the next time as well.

They'll probably alienate their so-called "core" audiences in the future, cuz they're poised to do so given the non-growth they've displayed since the 360 was launched.

More like niche'd into obscurity than niche'd out of existence (they're stubborn companies, afterall).

[NWR_Lindy]

I'm going to not pay attention to any of the (mostly) good points in this post and instead bash Silks for (probably accidentally) implying that the Genesis was a failed console.

That was my bad.  I my mind I was thinking "everything but the Genesis".  For some reason I was lumping a third console into post-Genesis Sega.  Ummm...I meant the Game Gear!  Yeah!

I don't think they'll leave the industry.  They'll just continue their failure trend, and fail the next time as well.

They'll probably alienate their so-called "core" audiences in the future, cuz they're poised to do so given the non-growth they've displayed since the 360 was launched.

More like niche'd into obscurity than niche'd out of existence (they're stubborn companies, afterall).

That's the thing though, I don't see the 360 and PS3 as failures at all.  Well, the 360 has utterly failed in Japan, but it's doing robust business in the U.S., and Microsoft is making money off of it.  The PS3 is still a player in the Japanese marketplace, and it's gaining momentum in the U.S. as well.

This generation of consoles is interesting because while you already have a clear-cut winner (Nintendo), you don't have a clear-cut loser.  It's not like the PS3 is like the Saturn, TurboGrafx-16, or the Sega Master System.  According to Vee-Gee-charts (not that I believe them, but their numbers can't be too wildly inaccurate), the PS3 has sold 15m worldwide and the 360 has sold 20m worldwide.  Those are pretty massive userbases, certainly enough to make some money off of.  With userbases that big, neither company has any reason to pull the plug any time soon.

[vudu]

According to Vee-Gee-charts the PS3 has sold 15m worldwide and the 360 has sold 20m worldwide.  Those are pretty massive userbases, certainly enough to make some money off of.

You're forgetting that most 360 owners are on their second (or third) system and that the PS3 is the cheapest (and best) Blu-ray player on the market (so you can't necessarily consider all those owner relevant to the gaming user base).  Those numbers are massively inflated.

/end troll

[NWR_Lindy]

Anybody that owns a PS3 is a potential game buyer.  Even if they just use it for Blu-Ray, Sony still makes money.  You're talking about game tie ratio, which is a different issue.  Since the PS3 is multipurpose, you can't use "game purchases"as the only success criteria.  It's a big one, but not the only one.

As for the 360, I'm assuming you mean people that moved from a Pro to an Elite.  I can see your point, but those Pro sales didn't just disappear when the Elite was bought.  Besides, the Pro consoles that were sold or traded in on an Elite likely went to somebody who is now buying 360 games, and is part of the active userbase.

You could say Nintendo DS sales are similarly inflated, since there are plenty of double-dippers in that userbase too.

[Flames_of_chaos]

Anybody that owns a PS3 is a potential game buyer.  Even if they just use it for Blu-Ray, Sony still makes money.  You're talking about game tie ratio, which is a different issue.  Since the PS3 is multipurpose, you can't use "game purchases"as the only success criteria.  It's a big one, but not the only one.

As for the 360, I'm assuming you mean people that moved from a Pro to an Elite.  I can see your point, but those Pro sales didn't just disappear when the Elite was bought.  Besides, the Pro consoles that were sold or traded in on an Elite likely went to somebody who is now buying 360 games, and is part of the active userbase.

You could say Nintendo DS sales are similarly inflated, since there are plenty of double-dippers in that userbase too.

Every console is bound to double dipping but the Wii is still the only platform this gen that has only 1 SKU. And every other platform has either a hardware revision and more than one SKU (Primarily Sony and MS).

But while there are a lot of 360 owners that are on their 2nd or 3rd 360 4 out of 5 people probably got theirs replaced by Microsoft so it isn't really fair to say that a lot of them bought doubles since a refurbished unit provided by Microsoft does not count as a sale.

[KDR_11k]

a refurbished unit provided by Microsoft does not count as a sale.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, MS loves statistics and I wouldn't put it beyond them to pad their numbers like that.

[ButteryPat]

That's the thing though, I don't see the 360 and PS3 as failures at all.  Well, the 360 has utterly failed in Japan, but it's doing robust business in the U.S., and Microsoft is making money off of it.  The PS3 is still a player in the Japanese marketplace, and it's gaining momentum in the U.S. as well.

This whole aspect is indicative of how the whole "console wars" thing is so overhyped and imaginary. It's like last generation, where Nintendo was making a ton of money on the Gamecube and sold quite a few of them, but were seen as a "failure" because of stupid console wars statistics. There were even articles questioning whether or not Nintendo would "survive". You've sort of got that now with the PS3. It hasn't sold nearly what it should've, and Sony has given up a lot of ground to Nintendo, but that doesn't make the system a failure. Just a disappointment and a hiccup for the suits and the investors. It will probably do just fine as people start making the Blu-Ray move, gets more marquee titles, and comes down in price more. Microsoft's success is as overinflated by the gaming press as usual, this generation because it's the console the vast majority of them seem biased toward (don't lie), and last generation because they were a new player in the industry that managed to carve out a stake for themselves, which was impressive. The Wii, I'm still told to believe, will be exposed as a "fad" (anytime now, right guys?) and has outdated hardware, which I think is pretty funny, as one of the 360's selling point (HD DVD) is already basically useless, and isn't going to get less useless with time. Oh yeah, and if Game Informer is to be believed, it's like Atari 2600 in that it has too many bad games, and will bring doom and DESTROY THE GAME INDUSTRY AS WE KNOW IT!!! Laaammmee. Not to mention a true testament to the fact that everything always looks better when you're remembering it 30 years later, as I'm pretty sure dog food companies and Quaker Oats aren't making Wii games.

The bottom line is that there really isn't some cutthroat "console war" going on anywhere. But "the industry is constantly growing and is allowing a lot of companies to thrive and sell systems" just isn't as inflammatory and exciting to talk about than who's "failing" and "winning" and who may not "survive" into the next generation.

EDIT:

Okay I've got to do some "bad simile" busting here:

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future. They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.

This just doesn't work. Again, Honda is a car company. I'm not an expert on them, so I won't say that categorically the only thing they're involved in is cars. But I'm pretty sure it is, and if it's not, I'm sure they don't make nearly as much money anywhere else than they do with cars. Apple does make other products, and they're a better example of what you're going for, but like you said, the iPod is ridiculously successful. It's a mainstay of pop culture now. It's on a much higher level than either the 360 or PS3. It would be moronic to remove something making money hand-over-fist. But neither the PS3 or 360 IS making that kind of money. You obscure your opponent's point with the strawman that they aren't just going to leave games "today or in the near future". But as you already know, that wasn't the point. The fact is that both companies are high profile, publicly traded companies that have made a lot of money in other things besides games for a long time, and have a bunch of shareholders to appease. The fact is that if the line under "Games Division" is red for too long, the shareholders get impatient and all the justification of the potential of games for growth won't convince them that the division isn't ineffective. I'm not saying they'll leave soon, in fact I think they're both in for awhile at least, but you just can't argue that they're in the same boat or "just as invested" as Nintendo. That simply isn't an argument you can win.

[KDR_11k]

I think the PS3 is a failure as a followup to the PS2, it's a success as a way of forcing BluRay on people but it lost a lot of the market the PS2 had. Going from having a marketshare over 50% to being the weakest player in the market is a failure.

[NWR_Lindy]

According to their website, Honda also makes ATVs, Engines, Jets, Home Power Units, Generators, Lawnmowers, Tillers, Trimmers, Motorcycles, Outboard Motors for boats, Jetskis, Pumps, Scooters, and Snowblowers.  They're more of an "engine" company than a car company, when it comes down to it, but they have their hands in all types of markets.

My point is that while Nintendo is a video game company right now, there's nothing that says they're going to be a video game company forever, either.  They're a big Japanese corporation just like Sony, and could change direction at any time.  In fact, some might say they already have, since they've pretty much stopped catering to the "core" gaming audience (or at least the audience that they catered to with the SNES, N64, and GameCube) because there isn't any money in it.  In other words, they're chasing the money, which is exactly what they did when they entered the business in the first place.

Nintendo is just too damn good at making money in the video game sector to bother doing anything else, but that doesn't mean it's a 100% impossibility that they'll leave the game industry.  Hiroshi Yamauchi railed against the high cost of developing games years ago, not because he cared about the art of making video games, but because as a businessman he was worried about the effect of spiraling costs on his bottom line.

The PS3 has failed to maintain the market share established by the PS2, absolutely.  But I disagree that it's an outright failure, since plenty of people own PS3s, developers are still making games for it, nobody has abandoned it, and it's still relevant in the marketplace.  In other words, there's still money in the PS3 business.  EA isn't bailing on it quite yet.

[NWR_insanolord]

I'm not arguing that the PS3 is a failure because it's too early to make a judgment like that, but you can't compare calling the GameCube a failure for being in last place to calling the PS3 a failure because it's in last place. Nintendo made money on (almost) every Cube they sold, and I'm pretty sure made more profit last generation than either of their competitors (they didn't take in anywhere near as much money, but they didn't lose anywhere near as much either). Sony, on the other hand, is hemorrhaging money with the PS3. According to launch figures they were losing over $100 on every $600 PS3 they sold. Now that's probably come down a bit since then, but they're selling PS3s for $400 now.

[Arbok]

In fact, some might say they already have, since they've pretty much stopped catering to the "core" gaming audience (or at least the audience that they catered to with the SNES, N64, and GameCube) because there isn't any money in it.

Someone better tell Nintendo to stop all production on Mario Kart and Smash Bros now, since Nintendo shouldn't be caring about that audience and there seems to be no money left to warrant producing additional copies. I mean, when was the last time a Mario Kart was even in the top sales charts anywhere?

[Mario]

A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.

[ButteryPat]

I think the PS3 is a failure as a followup to the PS2, it's a success as a way of forcing BluRay on people but it lost a lot of the market the PS2 had. Going from having a marketshare over 50% to being the weakest player in the market is a failure.

That's definitely true for now at least. There's no denying that the PS3 was a big mistake on multiple fronts. It was a product of the simple arrogant notion that everybody who bought a PS2 would buy a PS3, lockstep, no questions asked. All they had to do was say "look at the superior tech!" and that would be enough. They pretty much eschewed all the common knowledge of the video game industry (software sells hardware, superior hardware on it's own won't sell) because they thought they could manipulate the entire industry by the grace of their hand. It was a PR disaster, and Sony has nobody to blame for it but themselves. But, there's still potential. They've got the format on their side, price cuts and marquee titles will continue to come, and I could definitely see it making money by the time this cycle is over, particularly if we're to believe the analysts that this cycle will last longer than previous ones.

A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.

This is a much better analogy. See, Silks? It's not that people are saying that "Honda will stop making cars" it's more like saying "if Honda's F1 division continues racking up deficits for a long time, the board of executives could become tired of waiting for it to deliver on promises and decide it's not worth pursuing any longer". And that doesn't sound so crazy, does it?

[Nick DiMola]

The PS3 isn't a failure or anywhere near a failure. It is impossible to draw a proper analogy for the PS3 because it isn't really relegated to a single part of Sony. The PS3 for all intents and purposes was created to sell Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray sells movies, and more importantly, Blu-Ray sells expensive HDTVs; an industry where Sony's name is equated with luxury and quality.

The PS3 is already a booming success for Sony in that they secured the format war and will continue to sell HDTVs and Blu-Ray movies. Much like the PS2 brought DVDs mainstream success, so will the PS3 especially as the cost of the system moves down. Don't kid yourselves, the PS3 was priced high to accommodate the Blu-Ray player and that's it. Sony knew that they would lose customers (I'm not sure they thought they would lose as much as they did to Nintendo), but they were willing to do so in order to perk up their other divisions which weren't doing quite as well as their game division was doing.

In terms of purely gaming the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony. The next console, will undoubtedly be more competitively priced and they will make strides to pick up some of their lost ground. Of course, Blu-Ray will be cheaper then so the PS4 won't suffer from those costs.

Also keep in mind that the PSP has been very successful and the money made there is definitely propping up their bottom line in the game department. Oh and of course the PS2 which is still selling well and making Sony some great cash.

[UltimatePartyBear]

I can feel the pain of the PS3 fans.  It's actually my similar experience as a Nintendo fan that makes me kind of want one.  I see a lot of parallels between the PS3 and the N64.  I remember the N64 as a bit of a misstep that ended up having some of the best games ever, and I don't think that's a coincidence.  Nintendo was in rare form in those days in response to losing support in all corners.  The PS3 is definitely a misstep, though it remains to be seen whether Sony is capable of building a library of excellent exclusives.  Honestly, I expect the games to come from third parties for the most part.  I think the 360's failure in Japan should help with that, and there are indeed a couple of Japanese PS3 games on the horizon that have my interest.

On the other hand, the PS3 could wind up more like the Atari 5200.  Remember that one?  Exactly.  (Note: not an exact comparison.)

[NWR_Lindy]

The whole "PS3 doesn't have good exclusives" deal is totally a perception issue.  In reality, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted, MGS4, MLB 08, Motorstorm, a slew of excellent games on PSN, etc.) but they aren't from recognizable franchises.  On top of that, Sony hasn't really done anything to promote them, and people aren't going to buy what they don't know anything about.  I'd compare the best PS3 games to Wii titles like Zack & Wiki or Boom Blox...great games but nobody knows anything about them, and nobody's going to take a chance on what they don't know unless it gets extensive promotion.</soapbox>

You can't compare the N64 to the PS3.  For instance, the N64 had less than 400 games released in its entire lifetime, while the PS3 will like have that many games available by the end of this year.  Heck, Playstation Network will have 100 games by next year, and that's just PS3 content.  The PS3 has widespread developer support, and every multi-platform game out there is released for it as well as the 360.

You can say that the PS3 is a failure when compared to PS2, but GameCube is also a failure when compared to Wii.  It goes both ways.  Also, Nick is right when he says that the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony.  The PS3 put Sony in the red to the tune of something like $3 Billion, but saying that that will run them out of the business is pretty silly when they made about $10 BAZILLION on the PS2.

[UltimatePartyBear]

The whole "PS3 doesn't have good exclusives" deal is totally a perception issue.  In reality, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted, MGS4, MLB 08, Motorstorm, a slew of excellent games on PSN, etc.)

I know about all those, but the higher price of the console means the list needs to get longer, especially when personal tastes enter the equation and cut the list in half.  I should note that I got my N64 for $80 thanks to a special promotion, so it didn't take as much to convince me.

You can't compare the N64 to the PS3.

Sure I can.  The only way it could be a perfect comparison would be if I was comparing an N64 to another N64.  I'm just saying that it's a humbling experience that may require extraordinary effort to overcome, and that extraordinary effort can only be good for gamers.  I am not yet convinced $400 worth, but I'm hopeful.

You can say that the PS3 is a failure when compared to PS2, but GameCube is also a failure when compared to Wii.  It goes both ways.  Also, Nick is right when he says that the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony.  The PS3 put Sony in the red to the tune of something like $3 Billion, but saying that that will run them out of the business is pretty silly when they made about $10 BAZILLION on the PS2.

You're seeing conspiracies everywhere you look, apparently, because I haven't said anything about that.  You may have read too much into my 5200 comment, I guess, but I was just grasping for another console that was a disappointing successor to a wildly successful console.  Incidentally, time flows in one direction from a human perspective, so it would behoove you to not make comparisons that require a Tralfamadorian viewpoint. 

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

PS3 isn't a failure, it's just failing. I AIN'T DRUNK, I'M JUST DRINKIN'

1)  PS3 is not the market leader.  According to the "console war" defined by game journalists in the past decade, if you're not winning, you're losing.

2)  PS3 is not even the "HD" leader.  Xbox 360 still maintains a lead, keeping PS3 from appearing as the definitive HD figurehead.

3)  PS3 is in last place.  It's the place that comes after non-first-place positions.

4)  PS3 is losing to Wii, a last-gen machine.  On some occaisions, it was also losing to another last-gen-machine, the PS2.

5)  PS3 is not making money.  GameCube was a last-place-failure, but it put extra money in Nintendo's gutted piglet bank (as opposed to filling in gaps that used to hold money).  PS3 isn't making money until its debts are paid.

6)  PS3 is not living up to PS2's impression of success.  PS3 is not living up to the "PlayStation" name and legacy of success.  PS3 is competing with N64's performance, which is lol-worthy considering the "extensive" game library and "multitude of high end" multimedia features the PS3 has over the N64 in a launch-aligned comparison.  oi, I just compared the two

7)  The market leader is not "HD".  Despite the R&D, the marketing, the initial favoritism, the "superior tech", features/functionality and the promises of taking games to new heights, a next-gen machine is not in the lead.  PS3 was heavily invested, analyzed, favored, expected to be THAT next-gen leader.

  HD/Next-gen machine sales are underperforming compared to their last-gen predecessors.  It is a premature yet visible indicator that their potential success has been capped; worse, on the flaccid path to market shrinkage.  THIS is the climate the PS3 is supposed to thrive in and taked the predicted lead by the end of 2008?  2009?  2011?

9)  GTA IV didn't save gaming.  MGS4 didn't save gaming.  You can't save the PS3 without saving gaming.  *Insert next title to save gaming* _____

10)  ``HOW BAD ARE THINGS FOR SONY?`` "So bad it has to give its next "best game" away for free, as a bribe, to shift some more of those useless Blu-ray machines before the receivers are called in."  ... [little Big Planet] ... "So that's losing money on the hardware AND giving away the only game people might want this Christmas for free? This is Business 3.0!"  -- UK: Resistance


Mind you these are more along the lines of indicators rather than reasons.

[Deguello]

OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.

Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.  Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.

Hey if I only tick you off it's better than you trolling and flaming the entire board, calling them children, morons, uneducated, unserious, because they don't like the same games you do and suspecting THEM of fanboyism.  What. Ever.

I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future.  They're entrenched as entrenched can be.  It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.  Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple?  Absolutely.  Will that happen?  Hell no.  Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).

The thing is I never said that Sony and MS WILL pull out.  They are just more likely to because 1) They are losing a lot of money in this industry and 2) It's not really getting them anywhere other than "having a lot of loyal fans."  Then you use two companies that are making a lot of profit, Honda off cars and Apple off iPods, and say that they are similar to Sony and MS.  Being "entrenched" means nothing if keep bringing in red numbers and fail to grow.  As an example, Stage6, a popular DivX service meant to challenge Youtube through high quality video.  They had 17.4 million monthly visitors, and were going strong. Then suddenly and unexpectedly to their loyal fans, they shut the service down, citing hemorrhaging money costs.  This all despite their assertion that they would "live forever." (and speaking of which, that number is more than two million more than "loyal PS3 owners")

And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry.  The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.

So Microsoft has one more in them and Sony has two more?  I don't think you grasp the realities of the situation concerning Microsoft and Sony.  Microsoft has not made one red cent in this industry.  They haven't even made one cent this Generation, although they have lost less.  Somehow they'll have to justify a third to MONEY people and MONEY people don't care about "Loyal fans."  Wanna know the REAL "hardcore abandoners?"  Try investors.

And just to point out about Sony.  In the last TWO years, they have squandered their ENTIRE profits from the last TEN.  that means... PS1, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, MGS, GT, GT2, PS2, God of War, FFX, FFXI, FFXII, MGS2, MGS3, GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, Every Madden and every and all things in between... *pfft* gone.  And they're still losing money.  This could even erase their gains from their SONY IMAGESOFT days.  And this is with them selling approx. 42 million hardware units (PSP and PS3), and having multiple million sellers.  It would take a miracle to reverse Sony's fortunes, and no amount of magazine reviews can lead the majority to water here.

Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest.  Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray.  Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers.  It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it.  Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.

Cartridges actually drove user experience up.  Many gamers praised it for the elimination of long loading times which were worse then than they are now.  And you are correct, developers did shy away from the N64, but that had little to do with the user experience.  In fact it took a great long while before the developers actually made any PS1 games worth owning, different medium or not.  And counterpoised, I'd say Blu-Ray drove up unit costs greatly and prohibited a great many of the PS2 owners who wanted to upgrade and made them either hesitant or unable to purchase it.  I'd say that wrecks the user experience and I don't know if 3rd parties like it or not.

Funny how this "Cart vs. CD" stuff doesn't apply to the DS and the PSP.  Shouldn't the PSP just stomp the guts out of the DS?  I mean the DS cards will, maybe, one day, hold 1GB.  Maybe.  UMD's hold 1.9 Gigs.  Day one.  Why is this not working here?  I think it's clear that the third parties of old were trying to simply get out from under Nintendo at the time and found Sony a comfortable shelter.  They did it because it was cheaper.  Imagine that!  Several PS1 games, including some fot he megablockbusters, were made for the PS1 because they had a large userbase and it was cheaper to do so than make games on the N64 with it's higher graphical demands.  Wonder if something similar will happen in the future?

And Kudos for proving that Sony and MS will stay in the games business because one day in the future, Nintendo might possibly do something else.  So the permanence of the market is proven by its impermanence?  Do you have any idea what you are saying?  Sony and MS will stay in this one because Nintendo might enter another?  What?

[NWR_Lindy]

Hey if I only tick you off it's better than you trolling and flaming the entire board, calling them children, morons, uneducated, unserious, because they don't like the same games you do and suspecting THEM of fanboyism.  What. Ever.

I did that in one thread and I admitted it, but if you insist on trolling me for eternity then knock yourself out.

The thing is I never said that Sony and MS WILL pull out.  They are just more likely to because 1) They are losing a lot of money in this industry and 2) It's not really getting them anywhere other than "having a lot of loyal fans."  Then you use two companies that are making a lot of profit, Honda off cars and Apple off iPods, and say that they are similar to Sony and MS.  Being "entrenched" means nothing if keep bringing in red numbers and fail to grow.  As an example, Stage6, a popular DivX service meant to challenge Youtube through high quality video.  They had 17.4 million monthly visitors, and were going strong. Then suddenly and unexpectedly to their loyal fans, they shut the service down, citing hemorrhaging money costs.  This all despite their assertion that they would "live forever." (and speaking of which, that number is more than two million more than "loyal PS3 owners")

You'll certainly see Sony switch things up next generation, and not rely as heavily on the technical side of things.  They simply packed too much in the box when they didn't need to (the fact that they yanked a bunch of features in later PS3s is proof of that).  I still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.

And I don't think you can compare a video game company to a website...it's a lot harder for Sony and Microsoft to "pull the plug" than Stage6.  With a website the site IS the product - you don't have to support customers for the next five years.

So Microsoft has one more in them and Sony has two more?  I don't think you grasp the realities of the situation concerning Microsoft and Sony.  Microsoft has not made one red cent in this industry.  They haven't even made one cent this Generation, although they have lost less.  Somehow they'll have to justify a third to MONEY people and MONEY people don't care about "Loyal fans."  Wanna know the REAL "hardcore abandoners?"  Try investors.

And just to point out about Sony.  In the last TWO years, they have squandered their ENTIRE profits from the last TEN.  that means... PS1, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, MGS, GT, GT2, PS2, God of War, FFX, FFXI, FFXII, MGS2, MGS3, GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, Every Madden and every and all things in between... *pfft* gone.  And they're still losing money.  This could even erase their gains from their SONY IMAGESOFT days.  And this is with them selling approx. 42 million hardware units (PSP and PS3), and having multiple million sellers.  It would take a miracle to reverse Sony's fortunes, and no amount of magazine reviews can lead the majority to water here.

I think Sony will be fine.  If I was Microsoft I'd be worried, because beyond Xbox Live and Gears of War 2 I don't think they have many tricks up their sleeve.

Cartridges actually drove user experience up.  Many gamers praised it for the elimination of long loading times which were worse then than they are now.  And you are correct, developers did shy away from the N64, but that had little to do with the user experience.  In fact it took a great long while before the developers actually made any PS1 games worth owning, different medium or not.  And counterpoised, I'd say Blu-Ray drove up unit costs greatly and prohibited a great many of the PS2 owners who wanted to upgrade and made them either hesitant or unable to purchase it.  I'd say that wrecks the user experience and I don't know if 3rd parties like it or not.

I wasn't talking about load times.  I was talking about the effect that cartridges had on third-party relations, causing developers to bail only AFTER people had already bought the console.  Blu-Ray driving up the cost of the PS3 prevented people from buying it, but  they didn't spend any money.  The fact that the N64 used cartridges caused companies like EA to bail in the middle of the console's life cycle, essentially pulling the rug out from under gamers that assumed the console would have an acceptable amount of third-party support.

Funny how this "Cart vs. CD" stuff doesn't apply to the DS and the PSP.  Shouldn't the PSP just stomp the guts out of the DS?  I mean the DS cards will, maybe, one day, hold 1GB.  Maybe.  UMD's hold 1.9 Gigs.  Day one.  Why is this not working here?  I think it's clear that the third parties of old were trying to simply get out from under Nintendo at the time and found Sony a comfortable shelter.  They did it because it was cheaper.  Imagine that!  Several PS1 games, including some fot he megablockbusters, were made for the PS1 because they had a large userbase and it was cheaper to do so than make games on the N64 with it's higher graphical demands.  Wonder if something similar will happen in the future?

I don't think it applies because those DS cartridges likely cost a heck of a lot less to create in 2008 than the N64 cartridges did in 1996.  I'm sure that Nintendo has revised their royalty structure due to the N64 debacle, as well.  And I doubt that PS1 were much cheaper to develop than N64 games, either.

And Kudos for proving that Sony and MS will stay in the games business because one day in the future, Nintendo might possibly do something else.  So the permanence of the market is proven by its impermanence?  Do you have any idea what you are saying?  Sony and MS will stay in this one because Nintendo might enter another?  What?

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know what I'm saying.  I'm saying not to put Nintendo a pedestal, because they got into the industry for the same reasons that Sony and Microsoft did, and can exit the same way you claim Sony and Microsoft can.  If there's one thing that's permanent in the video game industry, it's impermanence.  At one time Atari was just like Nintendo - on top of the world and insurmountable.  Now they're all but gone.