ok, so let me get this analogy straight:
. . . he said, as he proceeded to get it totally wrong. The analogy was about marketing more than technology. I don't care whether you like BeOS or not. The point is, the hardware itself sold in inverse proportion to its quality, for reasons having entirely to do with marketing, and in the console battle, Microsoft is playing the part of Be - more expensive, unknown, incompatible, but incrementally "better." That formula is a loser, and always has been.
Funny, most slashdot readers I've seen spend most of their time accusing each other of being Linux zealots.
Yes, but most of them run Windows anyway. So what? The noises they make are not particularly relevant to what goes on in their heads, because they're mostly posers.
If your original analogy was that the x-box was in
fact the best tech, methinks you might want to go back and scrutinize the current (or near future) offerings that
we're talking about.
Best tech among what? It certainly is hardware superior to the PS2, Dreamcast, forthcoming Game Cube, and everything else that's come along so far in the console market.
As for the second bet, there might not be a sony or nintendo in the gaming market in the next five years. It's
highly likely considering that Sony's got a large electronics/music/crap line to draw money from if things get
tight, and Nintendo's always got the Pokemon franchise,
The fact that Sony has other businesses makes it more likely that they'd stick with PS2 even if it wasn't a market leader, not less. That's how conglomerates work. As for Nintendo, Pokemon has a limited shelf life, just like Cabbage Patch Kids and Beanie Babies, and they know that. They're not stupid.
but I'd bet you that a
[dreamcast,saturn,jaguar,coleco,turbografx 16] is so advanced that nothing could ever knock it out of the
You're missing the point. It isn't about being advanced. The Colecovision got replaced by Nintendo on the strength of vastly superior games and possession of almost all the new arcade titles at the time. The Saturn, Jaguar, and Dreamcast never had a chance; to say they wouldn't get knocked out suggests they were ever IN, which is false.
The gaming market is fickle. companies come and go for much less predictable reasons than something as
insignificant as a business plan.
Insignificant? Were you, by chance, a dot-bomb CEO?! That's the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks. Marketing strategy and business plan are everything. If you don't have them down solid, you're going to lose, and that's the whole problem with game consoles - most of them have no hope before they ever get started. Sony manages theirs like a product, as does Nintendo - Microsoft manages theirs like a geek toy, and that's what it is destined to be.
If you want, I can write you a history of game consoles, and show you just how and why every one of them either made it or didn't. Marketing wins every time. Technology can create market opportunities, but not all superior technology does so, and even a prime opportunity is nothing more - it can be wasted like any other opportunity. Possession of better technology is not inevitable victory.
Here's the short form: first, we had Atari. First real multigame game console, so they by default won for awhile. A few competitors spring up, none does very well except for Intellivision and Coleco. All get killed badly by Nintendo, which has command of a huge number of arcade hits people want at home. Marketing lesson number one: give them something at home that they currently have to go out for. Convenience. Sega comes along to play second fiddle for a few years. Lesson number two: sometimes, there is room for more than one company even without any real advantage held by the second, but rarely more than two. Nintendo sales outright hammer everyone else year after year, because they're continuing their exclusive games policy and there's no serious challenger.
Onward to sixteen bit games. Nintendo is the kids favorite at this point - anything else has to "overcome." This is lesson number three: if you are the de facto standard, everyone else's position sucks ass before he even starts. Sega's alternative does ok by offering edgy titles Nintendo doesn't want, but only among teenagers. Sony notices this phenomenon of market splitting, and releases the Playstation, absolutely annihilating Sega. There is a brief attempt to fight back, and a couple other companies try to butt in too, but it is pointless; Nintendo has the children's market and Sony has the adolescent and adult market - they're the standard, progressing onward and upward through 32 and 64 bit systems and so on.
Enter Dreamcast. See Dreamcast crushed by lack of any real marketing strategy sufficient to overcome the inertia of a market standard, combined with Sony's backwards compatible new console release. Game Cube will do fine - as a children's game, per usual.
Like an early 90s Mike Tyson bout, getting into the ring with these guys is a sign that you're the chump of the month. Here comes Microsoft... business plan? Nope; look at the financing even, and it looks like a damned dot com - lots of funds coming in from other than the intended revenue stream, with no real reason to believe that stream will ever materialize. Killer edge? Not really, unless you're a graphics geek; we already know technology alone won't make you a winner. Sure, they at least intend a marketing blitz, but so did Sega. They've got neat exclusive games and ports of other games. So did Sega.
Obvious beyond belief. Xbox will basically be DOA, for all the hype. Sure, on release day, nobody will notice. Wait six months after that and have a look again.
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie
[ Parent ]