Is there much weight behind being "an established player" in the console market (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

This is just food for thought, not meant to be inciteful, but hopefully "insightful" - or maybe I'm just rambling.

Anyway, I remember when PS first launched and the pundits said that it would fail. Nintendo and Sega were the Established Players in the console market, and who did Sony think it was to try and use their corporate muscle to gain access to this industry? After all, proven corporate giants like NEC and an attempted comeback from former giant Atari (Jaguar) all proved to be failures.

Now, not only has PS1 set industry records and standards, but the feat was repeated again, five years later by XBox. Furthermore, Sega has been ousted as a hardware player.

So does being an Established Player in the market mean anything anymore? Or do you just need a lot of capital and third party game developers onboard to make a splash? What will this mean as far as gaming for consumers? The old "platform specific" games like Mario, Sonic, etc. are either going by the wayside or going multiplatform. Sure Nintendo keeps pushing a new Mario game every so often, but nothing has made the splash that the original Super Mario Brothers made on the SNES. Will we start getting similar games along all 3 platforms thus making it difficult to choose one over the other? (ala EA Sports and A Madden For All Consoles)

Furthermore, what does it mean to now have a market controlled by 2 corporate giants (MS & Sony) and with only one lone "console company" holdout (Nintendo) left? Will this leave Mario as the lone "spokesfigure" for a console? Does Sony or XBox have something similar? Do they want one?

The answers are coming. What do you all think?

 

[Romier S]

Allot of good thoughts there Carlo!
I think name recognition is still important in todays console climate. Nintendo will have its loyal base that has been with them since the start. Sony has there legion of players. I think most buyers feel safer buying a console from an established company like Sony and Nintendo. Allot less fear of there money being wasted on what the industry considers "dying" platforms.
Sony came out of the gate with the PS1 at the right time. Sega really fumbled the Saturn launch and pissed off allot of retailers with their exclusivity deals. Nintendo's new system was a good bit off and people were ready to move to the next generation of gaming. Sony also offered the allure of a much easier console to develop for as opposed to the Saturn. This allowed for allot more third party support for the PS1. Nintendo making the N64 a cart system didn't help there position any either. It only served to strengthen Sony's dominance.
You now take a look at todays generation of systems and things are allot harder to look at. Dreamcast is dead (WHY OH WHY!!???). The PS2 has a year on the competition with a healthy 15-20 million install base worldwide. Sony was intelligent with their marketing of the PS2. They hyped it up so much that people felt they just had to have one no matter what. The monkey wrench in the plan though gets thrown in the form of the 2 new kids on the block. The Gamecube and the X-box both debuted extremely well and probably beyond the expectations of Sony. Did name recognition help? For Nintendo most definitely! Third party support is much better for the GCN and the price point helped even more. Microsoft is in a tougher position, as the newbie they have to contend with the PC image, a more expensive (yet more full featured) system. Also they are trying to break into the market with two very solid competitors. Sony and Nintendo are no Sega in '95. On the other hand this is the BIG M! we are dealing with. Microsoft has an endless supply of money to throw at this thing. Besides that they have an excellent array of third party support and also had an excellent launch to boot. Also the GCN and the X-box are reportedly easy to develop for which bodes well for both systems. That is one hurdle the PS2 is finally starting to overcome as developers become more familiar with the system.
After looking at the information yes I think name recognition does matter but a system cant survive without third party support (unless you have pokemon on your side). We also haven't seen the japanese launch of the X-box yet. Interesting times indeed.......

 

[JasonK]

Excellent question Carlo. The gaming nerd in me wants to believe that yes, being an "established player" will pull some weight in the minds of consumers, partly because I grew up during the Nintendo vs. Sega era, and some of the best games I've ever played came out of the 16-bit era.

In answer to your question, I'd say "yes, with a but..."

The big thing is how the established players are different than 10 years ago. Sega's out of hardware. The only company that made hardware in the 8-bit era and is still making hardware is Nintendo. Yet they don't have the same amount of clout as they did with "older" gamers. They are still seen as the choice for "kids." (Which is too bad, because the Cube has some fantastic games.) Hopefully, with Resident Evil and Metroid, that image will grow to the system with something for everyone.

Sony holds a lot of clout, but not because THEY make great games, but because their system has fantastic 3rd party games. The success of the PSX, which I bought on day one, caused a ton of people to skip the Dreamcast and wait for a PS2. (The fact that some people were still pissed at Sega over the Sega CD/32X/Saturn failures didn't help the DC either..too bad, because I love my DC.) The PS2 is now living up to the hype, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Which leaves Microsoft. They obviously have a lot of $$$ invested into their XBox, and are willing to spend a lot of $$$ to market it. But do they carry the same clout as Sony or Nintendo? I don't know that they do. They are still the newbies to the market, and have yet to win over the Japanese market. But put out a few more games of the same quality as Halo, and they will win over a lot of people. Regardless, Microsoft has done a hell of a lot better than the other "big" systems of the 90's, the 3DO,(remember that $700 beast?) and the Jaguar. (Atari's name recogintion meant NOTHING. The games didn't help, and the CD player made the system look like a toilet.)

My own feeling is that this holiday season will see Sony at #1, Nintendo at #2, and MS at #3. It will be interesting to see what the numbers look like this time next year, and who the powerhouse is.

I'll stop blabbering now.

Jason

 

[Mike_G]

All this history and nobody mentions...
ATARI
Talk about losing an established console...
Mike

 

[Carlo_M]

Mike, it's in there (my original post). I mentioned how Jaguar was a failure, but called it their comeback attempt (hinting at the glory that was the 2600).

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Being an Established Player means something if you approach it correctly. Nintendo has tried to use their reputation to take over handheld and console gaming, being successful with handheld. They aren't making dumb mistakes (like Sega's early launch of the Saturn) and are trying to make themselves very appealing to everyone. If they make the right decisions, then they will be able to make their name worth something for a while.

Sony was able to offer something the others didn't: Squaresoft. That is pretty much THE reason why they were so successful in the beginning. After that, people saw them as a big player and went with them.

Sega made some bad moves and didn't look too far into the future. They didn't fail, they just didn't succeed like they wanted to.

MS can come in and make a difference in gaming if they do it right. They have many big developers, but they will need to actually put that quantity to work and turn it into quality, and if they do it right, they will become a player.

Atari just died out. I can't explain that one.

 

[Brian-W]

At the end of the day, it all boils down to three key ingredients:

• Great Games (#1 feature)
• - Great marketing support and awareness
• Great Retail Support

The N64 didn't have anywhere near the library the PSX had (or even the SNES) but it was very successful and maintained healthy sales because it had great titles. Sure, every system has it's dogs, but having 2-3 "must have" titles is what it will always take.
For the next generation of systems, it looks like Gamecube has Star Wars, X-Box has Halo, and PSX2 has Gran Turismo as the games ultimately driving sales of the platforms. But the latest round of systems are going to see a lot more cross-platform pollenation and fewer 'unique' titles to each system.

Sony holds a lot of clout, but not because THEY make great games, but because their system has fantastic 3rd

• -Gran Turismo
• -Twisted Metal series
• -Tomb Raider
• -Crash Bandicoot

That list is from the PSX-1, and those titles sold millions of copies both domestically and worldwide. And Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot were exclusives on the PS1. That helped Sony at the retail level.
And after a while, developers and publishers are always curious about the new kid on the block. Publishers and developers were very excited about Sony entering the arena. I know, I worked at Sony's software group when Sony Computer Entertainment employee #1 was hired. I watched it spawn from there.
But NEC, they were immensly successful in Japan, but failed in the U.S. because of very slow software support. Most of the killer games in Japan never made their way over, and when they did, they were old already. Additionally marketing dollars spent by Sega (who were making their mark during this time frame) and Nintendo didn't help.
If Microsoft wasn't spending the $$$ in marketing right now, most consumers wouldn't be buying because they'd associate it with a PC product. And all you hardcore gamers: You account for little more than 4-5% of the total sales of any given platform. I was a bit surprised to learn this, but it's true.
Ultimately it's a ying and yang scenario, marketing $$$ need to be spent for awareness, but the games have to be 'killer' apps or no one's coming back.
Sony was known for TVs and Walkmans, not game machines. Microsoft known for operating systems. With money being spent to create awareness and educate the consumer, they've proven you don't have to be a game company to be successful.
Now both are regarded as game companies (Microsoft more so as time passes).
-Brian

 

[Dean Cooper]

Well this is a nice change of pace
To tell the truth I think a big "name" really means the most to the people that really don't know much about gaming. If you went up to any middle aged woman and asked her what the first name that came to her mind when you mention video games and she'll probably say Nintendo but couldn't specify a system to save her life. On the other hand if you went to a teenaged boy say 15 years old he would either say PS2, Game Cube or Xbox depending on which system he likes the most. He wouldn't even think of the name of the company behind the system because it’s too generic now.
If there were only one element that was required to make a console successful this place would be pretty boring. The truth is that it takes a number of things to become the next big thing in games. Things like cool factor, hype, great exclusive games, money, experience, a cool mascot, 3rd party support, luck, etc. There really isn't a magical formula to guarantee a stellar success. That’s why its so interesting to debate which system is going to be the next big thing.
Dean

 

[Gary King]

And all you hardcore gamers: You account for little more than 4-5% of the total sales of any given platform. I was a bit surprised to learn this, but it's true.

Yes, but if a console pleases the hardcore gamers (those that are really enthusiastic about gaming), it will probably please the casual gamers... and you get plenty of free marketing through good word-of-mouth... If I didn't like the Xbox, my opinions would have been enough to ensure that a number of my friends and family wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Atari just died out. I can't explain that one

IIRC, it had something to do with something like a billion unsold ET cartridges... And then that attempt to follow up with the 5200, which had by far and away the worst controllers ever seen on a gaming system.
I don't think anyone can say that being an established player really means much in the long run. Looking back at the console industry, every kingpin that was on top toppled eventually.
Atari, Nintendo, and Sega all had the bigshot console systems in previous generations but look at them now. Sega lost their shirt and is making games exclusively. Atari...I'm not sure what the hell Atari is anymore, but their logo is on my copy of Transworld Surf so I guess they're still doing something. And Nintendo...seems comfy with being #3. I guess ruling the handheld market takes all the sting out of losing the console market
But now Sony is on top, and yet the PS2 is not easy to develop for and Sony is allegedly not being as helpful to 3rd party developers as they were with the PSX, so I wonder if there's a hubris there that could bite them in the ass

 

[Ryan Peter]

Yeah, Nintendo really owns the handheld market, but not's not a great thing, or is it? Sony supposedly wants in on it, and that will make it interesting, since Sony has been all about 3D hardware since its beginning. Sadly a new Sony Handheld could shorten the lifespan of the GBA or maybe just make things more interesting and competitive. Or maybe they'll aim at the "mature" (yes "mature" ) market while Nintendo sticks with the younger market (this hasn't been the case so far with GBA and I hope it won't be in the future).
Anyway, I like the idea of having something more to choose from the handheld area and hopefully Sony can really liven things up.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Atari just died out. I can't explain that one.

One word: Tramiel. Jack Tramiel bought the company from Warner Brothers, split the arcade division off into a seperate company, and put his sons in charge of the company. Father and sons then made a series of stupid decisions:

• Not releasing the 7800 in 1983/1984, when it would have been the top of the line system and would have had the market to itself, with Coleco and Mattel retreating.
• Buying Federated department stores, a money-loser which didn't help the core businesses.
• Focusing on the ST line of computers, just as the MS-DOS standard was starting to take over. The ST did manage a niche market in the music industry thanks to its one real design innovation (built in MIDI ports), but in every other area, the Amiga was a superior machine and neither could compete with IBM's open architecture.
• Saying "no, we're really not interested in distributing the Famicom in America." Nintendo had originally thought that Atari would be able to better market what eventually became the NES in America than they would. This may be the most far-reaching bad decision in gaming history.
• Attempting to market the 2600jr, 7800, and XE Game Systems simultaneously (with less marketing between them than their competition was using for a single system). I understand some of the reasoning - ready-made libraries, the 2600jr at under $50 with $10-15 games would have filled a niche Nintendo and Sega were missing, etc. - but only the 7800 was really at the same technological level as the NES and SMS. Atari also repeated the same mistake they made with the 5200, supporting each system with the same old games. Eventually, the 7800 took the fore and started having more modern games written for it, but it was too little too late.
• The Lynx was too big, too expensive, and the backlight drained the batteries too quickly. Atari ameliorated that somehwat with the Lynx II, but by then, Nintendo owned the handheld market.
• The Jaguar was a pain to develop for - the only development platform was, IIRC, on the ST, and there were constant hardware revisions.
• No corporate character. Nintendo had Mario, Sega had Sonic, but all Atari could come up with was Trevor McFur, whose game stank. "Tempest 2000" was a great game, but had no marketing hook. The "Tiny Toon Adventures" game never materialized.
• The JagCD. Who approved that design, anyway?

Finally, Atari Corp. got sold to Western Digital, which was mainly interested in some patents it held (Atari Games eventually wound up with Midway). Hasbro purchased the Atari library and name, and then Infogrames bought Hasbro's interactive division. I've heard rumors that Infogrames plans to start rebranding themselves as Atari pretty soon, and wanted the library because they see a great future for those classic games in handheld devices (cellphones, PDAs, GBA, etc).
Then there were the lawsuits. Two, in particular, were huge:

• Atari held a patent on a certain algorithm for horizontal scrolling used in just about every platform game for a while, and built into the hardware of some of the 8/16-bit machines. Unfortunately, there's a long history of Japanese companies not honoring U.S. patents, and the legal battle Atari waged with Sega before they settled was brutal and draining.
• Atari funded the development of the Amiga chipset (which was developed by the same braintrust that built the 2600 and 800). The plan was that Atari would use it for a next-generation game machine, and then after a year or two, Amiga would be able to release it as a computer.
  Remember how advanced the Amiga was, graphically and sound-wise, in 1984? Can you imagine what if Atari released it as a console then? It would certainly explain why they scrapped the 7800 and blew Nintendo off.
  Instead, Commodore purchased Amiga, repaid Atari's expenses, and claimed that was good enough. Atari disagreed. A legal battle royale went on for years, and Atari won a phyrric victory, as outside forces had reduced both companies to shadows of their former selves. What Atari was able to collect probably killed Amiga, but there were no winners in that fight.

Anyway, to the original point... Does being an established player help? Sure. Name recognition is generally helpful. Newcomers can break in, but it'll cost - Sony threw all their corporate might behind the Playstation, as Microsoft is doing with the Xbox. Atari and 3D0 didn't have much corporate might to throw behind their systems and NEC always only seemed to have one game out at a time.
Playing dirty helps, too (insert Microsoft crack here). Atari employed a lot of lawyers when they were on top - for example, they sued Imagic because they claimed that the mothership level in the Intellivision version of "Demon Attack" infringed upon the the copyright of "Phoenix", which they had licensed. Nintendo was accused of dumping the NES at below cost. There were rumors of Nintendo making life difficult for retailers that stocked Atari or NEC products, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. Still, Nintendo was undoubtedly very aggressive when they first grabbed the market, and kept it until Sony came along willing to be just as aggressive and with the capital to back it up. Now Microsoft is trying the same tactics, and it'll probably work, too.
As for the future... Well, how many companies are there with the resources and determination of Sony and Microsoft (Nintendo got in while the market was basically empty)? IBM, I suppose, if they got interested, or AOL. Maybe Apple or LucasArts. And it will happen again - public companies need to not just be profitable, but expand.
I could definitely see AOL/Time-Warner entering the market in the next round, and likely succeeding, for example: They've got a hardware partner in Toshiba, better brands than even Nintendo (Batman or The Matrix as system exclusives?), and a pretty good platform for online gaming between AOL and Roadrunner cable modems. If they wanted to, they could be a major player, and they're eventually going to be looking for new markets.

 

[Calvin Watts III]

Jason,awesome post!!!
Everyone, there are some fine books out now on the history of videogaming.You can read for yourself how Atari had it all,and then lost it all. Or how Nintendo almost lost it all here in the US.
How Sega was founded by an American.
All sorts of stuff!
Any gaming fan would do well to read these:

• The Ultimate History of Video Games (aka The First Quarter) by Steven L. Kent
• Phoenix:The Fall & Rise of Videogames by Leonard Herman
• Game Over (which is a history of Nintendo) By: um I can't remember the name.

Anyways,its a good way to learn about the history of the hobby that we know and love.
For instance,if things were just a bit different,that our own US government would have the patents for videogames? (because a gov. scientist was the first to actually make a videogame...if you could call it that..)
Trust me..
Calvin

 

[Brian-W]

2600jr, 7800, XE Game System

Believe it or not, the 2600jr was far more successful than the 7800 or XE combined. It was cheap, had lots of software availability, and was available everywhere.
7800 had zero software support (eventually 2 companies provided 4 game titles), and Atari wasn't leveraging their arcade licenses for *any* of their platforms (eventually the Lynx got some support). Nintendo and Sega were leveraging their arcade licenses and thus were more successful and less reliant on outside game publishers.
Although Atari Games split from Atari Corp. in 1984 (took effect Jan. 1 1985), Atari Corp. still had first right of refusal on all home licenses. That's were they failed, they didn't leverage any of those licenses.
And as pointed out, their marketing dollars were poorly spent. The 2600jr received the bulk of the advertising dollars while the 7800 and XE had to split what was left.
The Lynx also didn't have the software support that Nintendo had via third parties. But as pointed out, it was expensive and ate through batteries (I think expense and availability killed it).
The Jaguar was really a weak system, as pointed out difficult to develop for, and a cartridge system which was viewed as "old school" vs. the upcoming CD machines. Yes, the N64 was a cart system, but Nintendo was an established brand with a large following. At this point, Atari was starting all over again.
And largely, the Jaguar had zero third party publishers. The games that were available on the Jaguar were all pretty much weak in comparison to 3D0/PSX/N64 titles. Even the 32X titles looked better !
Atari was actually sold to a floppy disc drive maker, JTS Technologies.
I enjoyed reading Jason's analysis. Those of you that are really interested in what happened to Atari, I invite you to these two websites (the two best IMHO):
www.atari-history.com
www.atarihq.com
Both are great enthusiast sites with so much information it'll make your head explode.
Having a name is important. Having the $$$$$$ to launch and support a system is more important (as is support).
I do miss Atari (I was an Atari fanboy) and now miss Sega (hardware).
-Brian

 

[Brian-W]

One final note on Atari. What helped Commodore and the Tramiels to be successful is what ended up being a double edged sword that killed them at Atari: They were cheap and unreasonable.

Retailers had to suck up to Commodore because they were so successful. When they moved to Atari, and Atari wasn't the success they used to be, with all the hatred of the Tramiels in the retail community, they got back at them buy not giving Atari their full support.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Actually, nowadays, marketability is the big thing.

I told a bunch of people that I just got a new videogame console. They all (yes, ALL) said "oh, the X-Box?" and I had to say "no, the other console" and they responded with "what other console?"

This just shows how MS's advertising made people so aware of their console, but Nintendo's little advertising didn't really push it out there. Because of Nintendo's name and fans (and word of mouth), it was able to do as well as it did at launch.

Had MS not advertised the X-Box at all, then I don't think it would have done as well. It would probably have done very well, but it wouldn't have ended up on so many people's Christmas lists.

 

[Jason Seaver]

The Jaguar was really a weak system, as pointed out difficult to develop for, and a cartridge system which was viewed as "old school" vs. the upcoming CD machines.

I don't recall that really being an issue - it came out a year or two after Genesis, SNES, and TG16, and while the move toward CDs could be seen as inevitable, it was also seen as costly - a 3D0 was something like $800, and SNK Neo Geo was absolutely insane (the games were $150).
Finding the damn things was impossible, though - I think Jaguars were only available in NYC and San Francisco until a couple of weeks before Christmas.
BTW, I left out the thing the Tramiels did which drove me and my friends the most absolutely completely nuts, for years, because it didn't really impact on consoles - they failed to release probably the two most anticipated computer games ever: The first two from Lucasfilm, "Ballblazer" and "Rescue On Fractalus". Developed for the 800XL in partnership with Atari, they were to be the first bank-switched 32K cartridges and were light-years ahead of what anyone else was doing with 8-bit computers, and the folks who had played pirated or review copies raved. Then the Tramiels bought the company and these games disappeared, eventually resurfacing two years or so later at Epyx, where they were modified to play from disc (grrrrr!), no longer quite cutting-edge, and, most painfully of all to us Atari fanboys, converted so that any slob with a C64 or Apple //e could play them! The indignity! I mean, there's a spot in hell reserved for Jack Tramiel because of that alone.

 

[Graeme Clark]

I don't recall that really being an issue - it came out a year or two after Genesis, SNES, and TG16, and while the move toward CDs could be seen as inevitable, it was also seen as costly - a 3D0 was something like $800, and SNK Neo Geo was absolutely insane (the games were $150).

Well, the Sega CD, Turbo CD, and 3DO were all out and viewed as the latest and greatest (despite their relitive failure) and I think it was pretty plain to see that CD was the way of the future. It was a bit more costly, but not in the huge amounts that you're trying to get across.

The 3DO was not $800 because it was a CD system, it was because it was hardware licensed out to multiple manufaturers, who make little to no money from the sales of software, so all their money had to be made from the sales of hardware. If it was cartidge based, but essentially the same, it probably would have been $700 (based on quotes from Nintendo when developing the N64 that a CD system adds about $100 to the price).

Neo Geo WAS a cartridge system catering to a niche market, and basically doing it on their own without any 3rd party support. The game costs were so high partially because they were 200mb carts which was somewhat unheard of at the time. The subsequent release of the 2 Neo Geo CD systems did bring down the price of the system and games.

Lets not forget the fact that the games on the Jaguar just looked terrible. I don't remember being truely impressed with a single Jaguar game.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Actually, the screen shots from "Aliens Vs. Predator" still look pretty decent, as did "Rayman". But I think that AvP was just about the last big Jag game out, and will still run you $80 new at B&C.
That's before getting into "BattleSphere", too.

 

[Graeme Clark]

I knew AvP would come up. It looked good, but I guess just didn't do much for me.

Did Fight For Life ever come out? That game looked beyond terrible.