... Well, not all the time, but certainly for the established players. Sony and Sega have proven themselves incapable of resisting the ol' sausage grinder, cranking out 80% lean arcade beat-em-ups, fighting games, and third-person shooters with their last two systems. SCEA launched the PlayStation with first-party gems Toshinden (fighting), Kileak (first-person shooter), and Raiden (side-scroller), and alongside the PS2 they birthed FantaVision (puzzle), and .. actually, that was the only one. Sega, for its part, presented new Saturn owners with Clockwork Knight (2d platformer), Daytona USA (racing), Virtua Fighter (fighting), and the admittedly excellent Panzer Dragoon. The Dreamcast wrought NFL2k (football), Sonic Adventure (3d platformer), and House of the Dead 2 (lightgun! .. but with no lightgun). And we won't even start on the XBox.
You may see where this is going. In contrast to other manufacturers, I claim that Nintendo generally produces excellent, blockbuster, system-selling titles to coincide with their system launches, and seems overall to more aggressively pursue innovation in its gameplay and player experiences. The Nintendo64 launched with two first-party games: Wave Race 64(a racer, but one which truly could never have existed before), PilotWings 64 (ok, it sucked), and Super Mario 64, a game many consider to still be one of the best ever made. The Gamecube launch, though uncharacteristically weak, nevertheless produced first-party titles Luigi's Mansion (eh), Wave Race Blue Storm (eh), and Animal Crossing, again, an excellent game which simply could not have existed on any prior console.
I harp on launch titles because I believe they provide fair insight into a company's philosophy. Reading down the list of acclaimed games for each system, there seems to be a good correlation between launch titles' quality and quantity, and overall library quality and quantity. The XBox, PlayStation and PS2 provide a veritable sea of unremarkable titles, with a few gems. The Saturn and Dreamcast provided more daring, intelligent games, but at the cost of a fairly small library. And the N64 and Gamecube have very small libraries of generally high quality games, usually with three or four titles that are considered works of art.
Looking at these libraries more closely, it's easy to see that cross-platform titles (ports) comprise a large percentage of the games on the Sony, Microsoft and Sega systems, but not on the Nintendo ones. Historically this was because Nintendo either carefully controlled publishing on their systems (NES, Super NES), because their hardware was radically different (N64, Gamecube), or because the comparatively low number of people who owned their systems made it not cost-effective to perform the port (N64, Gamecube). As a result, Nintendo is accustomed to, and comfortable with, sustaining their consoles using only their own games.
This approach has led to Nintendo's becoming, I believe, the undisputed king of innovative gameplay experiences. They've a history of launching weird and wonderful systems, and them being one of very few developers to put titles out for these weirdo systems. This willingness to lay it all on the line in order to try new things is very exciting and attractive to me, which is why, over the last few years, I've owned an N64 (not a PlayStation or Saturn) and a Gamecube (not a Dreamcast, PS2 or XBox). I look for games to provide novel experiences, and though Gran Turismo 4 might be an addictive, fun game, it's nothing new. But plastic bongos? Now that's new.
I'm very excited about this next generation of consoles, because I feel like Nintendo suddenly has a shot at blowing everyone's doors off. How so? I think they'll do it by making the most compelling case in each of the three key areas of contention in the console wars: overall size of the game library, price of the console, and quality of exclusive titles.
There's a good reason the Nintendo systems have been in third place over the last two console generations: people like choice, and they gravitate towards the system with the most games. In the past, as was mentioned above, Nintendo's consoles have had weird hardware. This results in fewer game ports, which results in fewer console sales, which results in fewer game ports. Fortunately, they've realized their error, and have made the proper course correction. This time around, the hardware's normal. Their next console, the Revolution, is powered by the same PowerPC-derived architecture as the XBox 360, and it facilitates multithreaded applications in a similar manner to both the 360 and the PlayStation 3. This is highly oversimplified, but the conclusion is valid: The next Nintendo system will have a low cost of entry for developers, and will very likely receive a whole lot of XBox 360 ports as a result. This is great for the average consumer, because the 360 is launching real soon now, and developers will be working on their second- or third-gen 360 titles by the time the Revolution rolls around. Since simultaneous release of games is a popular way to stretch marketing dollars, the Revolution will very likely be seeing a number of second-gen 360 games ported to it just as it launches. A large perceived library at launch is great, and goes hand-in-hand with the next reason the Revolution is going to succeed: price.
Although the official price of the Revolution hasn't been revealed, it's been made clear that it will undercut the 360 and PS3. This is in line with the Gamecube strategy, and Nintendo's desire to sell to a generally younger audience than the other systems. But this time around, if we assume that the Revolution and 360 will have similar libraries, then the cheaper system is clearly the logical choice for parents come Christmastime. (And, if current refurbished system prices are any indication, used 360s will still probably cost more than new Revolutions). Nintendo will be able to undercut the price of their competition by foregoing high horsepower processing and a lot of the extraneous media center stuff in order to deliver "a single-minded gaming device."
And finally, with their haste to address price and library size, it would make sense to assume that Nintendo has chosen to take a more mainstream route with the Revolution -- just making a 360 on the cheap. But again, they've chosen the path less traveled, and made the move no one else had the balls to: they've completely reinvented the controller, and in so doing they've guaranteed that their excellent first-party titles will not be replicable on any other system. (They've said that a normal controller will be made available as well, but it won't be the default.) So they'll reap the rewards of titles developed for other systems and ported to theirs, while ensuring the opposite won't work. It seems an excellent strategic move.
If you didn't watch the controller movie linked to above, please do. It's worth it.
In the end, Sony and Microsoft will still be hugely successful, and their future consoles will very likely enjoy as much success as the current ones have. But I think this time around Nintendo has managed to outsmart them, and I predict they'll have the system to own this time around.
posted by avixe @ 8:18 AM
2 Comments:
Interesting ideas. I agree with most of the top part, launches are a disaster. But I argue two of your points:
1) You imply that people bought the XBos and PS2 because they had a larger number of games, and thus more variety per dollar. That may be why most people did it, but I'd say a fair amount of people bought Xbox/PS2 because they knew what types of games historically come out on that company's consoles. Personally, that's why I'd still by a PS2 over a Gamecube, but a Gamecube over an XBox.
2) This is the big one. But you mention it so many times, I'm wondering if I'm missing something. Your main point towards the end of the article is that the Revolution will receive ports of 360 (and you didn't mention it, but probably PS3 games as well, though not at launch). But you also talk about how one of the Revolution's greatest attractions is the low price tag they achieved by "foregoing high horsepower processing." I am highly skeptical as to whether or not the Revolution will be able to handle games made for the 360 (or PS3). I think that them going with the low-cost approach will allow them to hit a wider audience, but at the cost of getting very few direct ports of other games. Any games for the Revolution will most likely be Rev-exclusive (though they could be ported to 360/PS3 and upgraded), and most games for 360/PS3 won't make it to Revolution. I imagine companies could modify the game to run on the Rev, but who would want to buy a game that toned down when it's available on another console with all the extra stuff?
I'd love to be wrong on that second point. I intend to buy a PS3 and a Revolution. I just imagine they will be completely different.
Jeff,
To your first point, I don't think that really applies to the XBox, since neither it nor Microsoft had any history in the console sector. As far as the PS2 goes, you're certainly right that there were titles people wanted and expected would come out for it (especially sequels to PS1 games). But at the time, the XBox was an unknown quantity, the Dreamcast was dying, and the Gamecube was the kiddie system, then the PS2 was simply the only game in town.
As to your second point, excellent thoughts. I think I'll write a follow-up to try and address them.
Post a Comment
<< Home