Console-Generations Need To Be Longer
It has happened throughout time. There is a successful and popular console, but its followup does not do nearly as well. The NES was very successful, but the SNES could not meet its success. The DS was very successful, but the 3DS's sales were nowhere close to it. Of course, there are exceptions. Following PS1's massive success, the PS2 did even better, becoming the best-selling dedicated video-game device of all time. It is the exception however, and not the rule.
Why does this happen? The theory I will posit today is that generations are too short and need to be longer.
The casual consumer does not want to buy the same thing over and over again. It's no longer the fresh, new, hot thing anymore. Even if everything is improved and there is backward-compatibility, it's not enough to get customers to buy the successor. Although the 3DS improved on the DS in a number of ways, it was just seen as a successor to the DS, and so people were reluctant to purchase one. It took a long time to convince people to buy 3DSes.
What can hardware-manufacturers do? Nintendo tries various strategies. They try to make something new every time to entice people with something fresh. The Game Boy, Wii, DS, and NS were all fresh.
Nintendo also tries console-iterations. This was no more evident than during the 3DS-era. You had the original 3DS, 3DS XL, "new" 3DS, "new" 3DS XL, 2DS, and "new" 2DS XL. By releasing new variations on hardware that can all play the same software, it forces retailers to buy new stock, so even if customers don't actually buy these new systems, Nintendo will have sold them. Nintendo is done; they sold their systems and made money. They don't care if these systems are not sold to consumers; they can report these as sold.
My theory is that if generations were longer, it would actually help the console gaming-industry.
The prime example is the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/Wii generation. X360 came out in 2005 and its successor, the Xbox One, came out in 2013. It's true that the majority of the core gamers that Microsoft garnered with its Xbox 360 jumped ship and bought PlayStation 4s, and although that happening wasn't great for Microsoft, it was great for the industry overall. There was much anticipation and demand for a new generation, and that fervor has carried on to this today. PS4s are selling at a rate comparable to the PS2.
Why is this? By having a long generation, people were able to develop into gamers. They were able to try a lot of different games from different companies and genres. The generation made people more multi-platform than ever before; most gamers weren't locked to one console. Because the generation was long, they were able to save up and buy two or three consoles.
Thankfully, I think this current generation, with the exception of Nintendo, seems to be in for the long haul. Games take longer than ever to develop, and it makes no sense to rush a new system out to market. Ride the PS4/XB1 train for a few more years. Everyone will profit.
Why does this happen? The theory I will posit today is that generations are too short and need to be longer.
The casual consumer does not want to buy the same thing over and over again. It's no longer the fresh, new, hot thing anymore. Even if everything is improved and there is backward-compatibility, it's not enough to get customers to buy the successor. Although the 3DS improved on the DS in a number of ways, it was just seen as a successor to the DS, and so people were reluctant to purchase one. It took a long time to convince people to buy 3DSes.
What can hardware-manufacturers do? Nintendo tries various strategies. They try to make something new every time to entice people with something fresh. The Game Boy, Wii, DS, and NS were all fresh.
Nintendo also tries console-iterations. This was no more evident than during the 3DS-era. You had the original 3DS, 3DS XL, "new" 3DS, "new" 3DS XL, 2DS, and "new" 2DS XL. By releasing new variations on hardware that can all play the same software, it forces retailers to buy new stock, so even if customers don't actually buy these new systems, Nintendo will have sold them. Nintendo is done; they sold their systems and made money. They don't care if these systems are not sold to consumers; they can report these as sold.
My theory is that if generations were longer, it would actually help the console gaming-industry.
The prime example is the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/Wii generation. X360 came out in 2005 and its successor, the Xbox One, came out in 2013. It's true that the majority of the core gamers that Microsoft garnered with its Xbox 360 jumped ship and bought PlayStation 4s, and although that happening wasn't great for Microsoft, it was great for the industry overall. There was much anticipation and demand for a new generation, and that fervor has carried on to this today. PS4s are selling at a rate comparable to the PS2.
Why is this? By having a long generation, people were able to develop into gamers. They were able to try a lot of different games from different companies and genres. The generation made people more multi-platform than ever before; most gamers weren't locked to one console. Because the generation was long, they were able to save up and buy two or three consoles.
Thankfully, I think this current generation, with the exception of Nintendo, seems to be in for the long haul. Games take longer than ever to develop, and it makes no sense to rush a new system out to market. Ride the PS4/XB1 train for a few more years. Everyone will profit.
Comments
Post a Comment