I'm sorry, but Sony has already demonstrated that system specifications make about as much difference as the original Nintendo Entertainment System's did. If specifications made such a huge difference in the market, the Xbox would be outselling its competition, which it's not. What Microsoft is doing right is following Nintendo's old formula. Sony has done some of the same thing, too. They're advertising their product out the wazoo and getting it over to the "mainstream" which happens to encompass most of the consumer market. If you consider yourself to not be mainstream, then that's comparable to living under a rock. There's nothing wrong with that or appealing to the mainstream. It's how Nintendo got into first place to begin with. It's how you increase sales of a product.
Obviously, having a good system to work with is very important to the developers. Some of the advertisement of system spec's is directed at a certain demographic. Most PS2 gamers do not care about console power. Some of the guys who specialize in PC gaming may care (considering that where man's automobile used to be a show of his 'manhood', computers have seemingly taken over for some). The system power, if advertised correctly, can be somewhat effective on some, but the keyword is advertised. Most Xbox owners had system power implanted in their minds. They know as little about the Xbox's power as they do the Gamecube's. So what? The key is that it was advertised. The Xbox's true winning specification is its platform compatability. It uses many of the same tools a PC does. Programmers know a lot about it. In the end, all they care about is that it takes little work to port PC-to-Xbox and the little clunky box has the hardware to support the software without butchering it too much. That's all it amounts to. If it wasn't specifically like that, the Xbox's power would go unnoticed.
For Sony, its formula remains cranking out the key titles people are looking for. Plain and simple. They are relaxed in development for their system, and third parties like that. Sony doesn't go around telling developers what to do for their system. Sony, in the beginning, had the full equation for winning. That's not so much the truth anymore, but they still have the upperhand. They advertise and manage to satisfy their consumers. What can be said about Sony now is not so much important to this argument as it is Sony's performances in this generation that gives us the example. Sony did something right a while back. They've made sure their consumers have plenty to keep them occupied, they've delivered the requested products, and they advertised it like crazy. Sony has set a standard in the industry by managing to give their games (third parties most importantly) the exposure needed to cause their consumers to buy a wider variety of games; the demo discs are an example.
The point of the two companies and their performance is that they're doing basically what Nintendo used to. They have gotten over to the consumer. That's all it takes. Once the consumer readily knows you, they wouldn't have a clue if your consoles exploded or you had only one good game, and they would buy your product. It's recognition that you exist. The more Xbox ads we see, the more we know Xbox is a product that is surviving. If we stopped seeing Xbox, wouldn't we all start to assume they are dying or weakening? The more I see of Xbox, the more I think it's taking over. When I see it all over TV, all over billboards and signs, I start to think it's overpowering the competition. This is subconscious. Because I'm a more diverse consumer (diverse in that I use considerably more sources for product information), the exposure from TV and signs means less to me, but I am not the statistical norm. Even with my sources, I sometimes wonder where Nintendo is, and if they're thriving. I have to go out of my way to see how Nintendo is doing. I don't have to do that with Sony and Xbox. They make sure I know they're alive. This is the point I make, and it brings up more questions.
Why has Nintendo changed? What has gone on inside of Nintendo to change the company from what it used to be? We know Nintendo is a bully, or was is more like it. They have angered developing groups in the past. They have had entire chains of stores to not want to do business with them. Nintendo used to be a shark. I know this to be true just by looking at how they view today's market with their products. However, somewhere during the 1990's, they transformed. They transformed from a hungry competitive gaming business to a relaxed conservative business. Since that transformation, they have slipped from first. The consumer has started to forget what a Nintendo is. I have actually met serious gamers who do not know what a Gamecube is. The audience for Nintendo is growing up and unless we see more exposure for the products, young gamers will grow up on a Playstation or an Xbox, and that is the absolute truth in America. I grew up playing the console my dad bought. Why doesn't this make sense to Nintendo?
The bottom line is that quality games and system power do not move consoles. Playstation2 is making the competition look bad on recognition alone. Yes, that recognition stems from having a handful of quality products, but without the recognition the games would go largely unnoticed. The Nintendo64 is a prime example of how important exposure is, granted it was depleating exposure, it still played a major role in the N64's early success. While Nintendo was still battling with Sony over top spot in the spotlight, the games were selling very well, but Nintendo was already cutting back on its message to the mainstream and sure enough, not too long after the launch, the advertisement was disappearing and gamers were losing a sense that the N64 was a success. It wasn't until the Legend of Zelda, a greatly hyped game, that the N64 would pull itself back into the minds of the media. We all know what happened after Ocarina of Time. Sony continued its advertisement just as always while Nintendo forfeited its exposure and trailed the rest of the way. Having the quality titles did next to nothing to boost Nintendo sales simply because gamers were uncertain over the well-being of the Nintendo64. They knew it was out there, but many of them would not buy it because they saw the Playstation as being the console with the most happening (a more confident purchase because Sony is letting them know it's alive).
The formula for console gaming has not changed. Let Sony and Microsoft be an example that Nintendo's old formula still works. If Nintendo wants to compete with Microsoft and Sony, they will meet them in battle on TVs everywhere. It doesn't matter what games, they can do it with the franchises they've got! Get the gamers back into the games, Nintendo. Recognition is all it takes to convince consumers you're a good buy. It doesn't matter so much about image as long as you appear to be giving a good fight.
Now, I have to say one more thing that's not quite related to the above. Some of you are making the comment that Xbox2 won't do as well, but I don't know for sure. After what Sony has done in this current generation, I'm under the impression that if it happens again, Sony will take the tumble. They are not playing the game as sharply as they did with the first Playstation, and if Sony is as arrogant as I think they are (translation: as arrogant as Nintendo was), Microsoft is going to climb into number one in America in the next generation if it continues the onslaught. However, it largely depends on what Bill wants to do. He has the media power to plaster Sony if it makes the same mistake again. The Playstation2 was so vulnerable during that first year that a competitor could have made the jump. The shortage of consoles looked bad and the lack of quality games was ugly and looked an awful lot like what Nintendo does. Plain and simple, all Nintnedo needs to do is show a little market power and advertise in the next generation.
Topic: Gamecube doing bad? Well maybe if you only look at the short term. (Read 5772 times)
