- Sub-cycle #1: The Handheld market.
- Sub-cycle #2: The Wii market.
- Sub-cycle #3: The Xbox 360 and PS3 market.
Reader Comments (17)
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:16PM Saucepanman said
THQ, lol.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:22PM (Unverified) said
Meh. I disagree. While I think this was true in the past, many companies (namely Nintendo and Sony) are now producing handhelds that are so intertwined with their consoles that they will try to cycle them together and promote brand loyalty.
Also, although the Wii may have a slightly larger/different target audience than the 360/PS3 crowd, I'm not sure I would classify it in an entirely different cycles. The three consoles are very much influenced by one another.
Just my $0.02
Also, although the Wii may have a slightly larger/different target audience than the 360/PS3 crowd, I'm not sure I would classify it in an entirely different cycles. The three consoles are very much influenced by one another.
Just my $0.02
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:29PM (Unverified) said
I think what he said has some merit. If Sony is to be believed (and looking at the PS2's lifetime I do believe them), then they won't stop supporting the PS3 until 2016. Microsoft will probably crank out another Xbox by the end of 2009 (if they follow their previous 4-year cycle), and Nintendo is a wildcard, just like he said.
I do see handhelds as their own cycle, but Nintendo and Sony would probably be happy to create DS 2 and PSP 2's that still connect to their current console offerings.
I do see handhelds as their own cycle, but Nintendo and Sony would probably be happy to create DS 2 and PSP 2's that still connect to their current console offerings.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:59PM samfish said
Sony can talk all they want. Fact is, by the time 2010 rolls around, if the PS3 isn't at least on it's way to being market leader, it'll have a 5-6 year lifecycle max. They aren't going to support the PS3 when the next round of consoles comes out and, like the Gamecube and Xbox, is seen as an also-ran by the industry at that point. It would be a waste of money to develop for it. You might as well throw your money into a bonfire. Same thing.
In other words, second (or third) place doesn't get to stick around for 10 years because they don't have the sales to justify it.
Reply
In other words, second (or third) place doesn't get to stick around for 10 years because they don't have the sales to justify it.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:38PM (Unverified) said
Samfish,
The fact is that it's been eight years since the Playstation 2 released, and Sony is still pushing the console hard, just look at E3 of this year. It's still a major part of their current and future plans, especially in developing countries that are just getting their hands on technology.
The only reason Gamecube and Xbox were seen as also-ran's is because Nintendo and Microsoft essentially cut off support for them as soon as their new offerings hit the street. Good luck finding either of those two systems on the shelves. You can still walk into just about any electronics store and get BRAND NEW PS2 bundles.
If you connect the dots, it's not too hard to believe that they're going to push the PS3 just as hard, especially considering the immense capital they've sunk into it. Why the heck would they drop support for a system only two years after they start making a profit?
Reply
The fact is that it's been eight years since the Playstation 2 released, and Sony is still pushing the console hard, just look at E3 of this year. It's still a major part of their current and future plans, especially in developing countries that are just getting their hands on technology.
The only reason Gamecube and Xbox were seen as also-ran's is because Nintendo and Microsoft essentially cut off support for them as soon as their new offerings hit the street. Good luck finding either of those two systems on the shelves. You can still walk into just about any electronics store and get BRAND NEW PS2 bundles.
If you connect the dots, it's not too hard to believe that they're going to push the PS3 just as hard, especially considering the immense capital they've sunk into it. Why the heck would they drop support for a system only two years after they start making a profit?
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:41PM (Unverified) said
I think MS won't launch their next console in 2009, but they will launch much sooner than people want.
It'll be interesting to see if they drop the current one like a brick, as they did their original xbox. Or maybe just the RRoD ones, har har. Let's hope they learned from their mistakes. Of course the situation is different now with backwards compatibility being a hot issue and the whole gamerscore/paid content stuff.
However, they will do everything they can to launch first again. If they hadn't this generation, the 360 would be all but dead, considering the current generation. They simply needed a head start to compete and may need it again.
Meanwhile Sony has proven that they will support previous gen consoles. Of course, the PS3 has not (yet?) reached the install base the PS2 enjoyed. However, the PS3 is lighter on ceremony and licensing stuff, so developing for it at that point may still be worthwhile. I wouldn't be surprised if they launched behind MS again, but they obviously don't want the gap to be as huge as last time. (They never said that they would not launch another console for 10 years btw...)
Reply
It'll be interesting to see if they drop the current one like a brick, as they did their original xbox. Or maybe just the RRoD ones, har har. Let's hope they learned from their mistakes. Of course the situation is different now with backwards compatibility being a hot issue and the whole gamerscore/paid content stuff.
However, they will do everything they can to launch first again. If they hadn't this generation, the 360 would be all but dead, considering the current generation. They simply needed a head start to compete and may need it again.
Meanwhile Sony has proven that they will support previous gen consoles. Of course, the PS3 has not (yet?) reached the install base the PS2 enjoyed. However, the PS3 is lighter on ceremony and licensing stuff, so developing for it at that point may still be worthwhile. I wouldn't be surprised if they launched behind MS again, but they obviously don't want the gap to be as huge as last time. (They never said that they would not launch another console for 10 years btw...)
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:59PM samfish said
"If you connect the dots, it's not too hard to believe that they're going to push the PS3 just as hard, especially considering the immense capital they've sunk into it."
Not really. The SNES and NES also had extended life cycles. It's just the way it works for the 'winner'.
Reply
Not really. The SNES and NES also had extended life cycles. It's just the way it works for the 'winner'.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 9:37PM (Unverified) said
So what you're saying is that the "winner" keeps supporting the hardware - which makes sense. But the market is fractured. Sony and Microsoft are vying for different demographics than Nintendo. There is room for two winners in the console market. Sony has made it clear (multiple times) that they want to support the PS3 for a long time. I'm not saying they won't come out with a PS4 in 3 years, but they won't just drop the PS3 like a bad habit as soon as the Xbox whatever comes out.
Reply
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:32PM dbossnirvana said
Sub-Cycle #4: FAIL!
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 9:04PM (Unverified) said
Sub-Cycle #4: ????
Sub-Cycle #5: Profit!
Sub-Cycle #6: CAKE
Sub-Cycle #7: FAIL!
Reply
Sub-Cycle #5: Profit!
Sub-Cycle #6: CAKE
Sub-Cycle #7: FAIL!
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:36PM d1srupt0r said
Brian Ferrell in his "comedy cycle"....he borrowed some talent from his brothe Will Ferrell.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 4:43PM BananaBoat said
The cycle is going to continue until people stop buying new consoles. I don't know who he is kidding. Microsoft will surely try to get their piece of the Blu-Ray pie with their next console that should be out 2010ish. Since their new thing is taking over the living room, they'd be at a big disadvantage if they didn't have the next gen format in a console as soon as possible.
The fact of the matter is that processors get faster, graphics cards get beefier, and at some point they get to the point where a console that is better (enough) than the previous console can be produced for a price that makes it viable (Kinda like how I can play Crysis on my PC at Very High/1080p, and it looks a ton better than any console game, but it also cost about 3-4 times more money. By the next gen of consoles, that will cost 400-600 dollars instead of 1200+)
The fact of the matter is that processors get faster, graphics cards get beefier, and at some point they get to the point where a console that is better (enough) than the previous console can be produced for a price that makes it viable (Kinda like how I can play Crysis on my PC at Very High/1080p, and it looks a ton better than any console game, but it also cost about 3-4 times more money. By the next gen of consoles, that will cost 400-600 dollars instead of 1200+)
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:01PM Ridgecity said
If you wanna make money in this industry, this is the model you should follow. other than Rockstar's or Harmonix's or Bungie's model, single console makers are failing very bad.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:05PM samfish said
I think the videogame industry really is run by morons sometimes.
If we go by this silly notion, than it's safe to say we've already passed the handheld cycle, and that the Wii and PS360 cycle should be SWITCHED. We're ending the PS360 cycle if anything and just starting the Wii cycle.
Not that it matters. MS will probably release their new console in 2010, thereby ending any possibility of of 'sub-cycles' and prove that, as always, consoles are on the 5 year plan.
If we go by this silly notion, than it's safe to say we've already passed the handheld cycle, and that the Wii and PS360 cycle should be SWITCHED. We're ending the PS360 cycle if anything and just starting the Wii cycle.
Not that it matters. MS will probably release their new console in 2010, thereby ending any possibility of of 'sub-cycles' and prove that, as always, consoles are on the 5 year plan.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:43PM (Unverified) said
I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it, but Microsoft was the first console maker to break the cycle by introducing the 360 only four years after the Xbox. If they do drop a new piece of hardware in 2005, only then will they be back on the 5 year plan.
Reply
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:10PM Withad said
The handheld market has always been relatively separate from the home console market. Related, but different enough in terms of time (and, of course, power) that they can be treated separately. If anything, the new home consoles have closer links to there handheld counterparts (via downloadable demos and stuff like the GBA link-up stuff) than ever before.
It seems like he's confused "cycle" with "market". The consoles are still coming out around the same time and competing with one another, but his assessment of the different markets is about right. And incredibly obvious - the PS3/360 vs Wii divide has been explicitly stated by the companies involved (along with many developers and experts) and the handheld market has always been distinct.
It seems like he's confused "cycle" with "market". The consoles are still coming out around the same time and competing with one another, but his assessment of the different markets is about right. And incredibly obvious - the PS3/360 vs Wii divide has been explicitly stated by the companies involved (along with many developers and experts) and the handheld market has always been distinct.
Posted: Aug 5th 2008 5:49PM (Unverified) said
All according to plan.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM