Support NeoGAF

[sonycowboy]

Looking over the Wedbush report and thinking about next generation, it became clear to me that many of us are way off base with our comments about: When GT5 / SOCOM 3 / GTA 5 comes out on PS3 or Halo 3 / PGR 3 on the Xbox 3, etc.

1) Time: Given that the PS3 will not launch until 2006, we would not expect to see most of the major sequels until 2007. That's 3 years away. Plenty of time to release another for the current gen. I know that the other systems, specifically Xbox may launch sooner, but I expect that the next generation explosion would still not happen until 2007 for many reasons, especially developer resources and focus.

2) Sales: The PS2 is expected to sell > 120 million units before it's life end, they are currently only at 70+. If you're making a big name game, would you rather sell to 120+ million users (or 25+ million Xbox users) or 1-2 million early adopters? You'd be leaving WAY too much money on the table to not give it another go around.

3) Cost: Given lower sales to a lower user base, why would you spend 3-4 times as much on next generation development when you're getting such a small return on investment? You're getting screwed on both ends. You could make the big name franchise and with the profits, buy another development team which will solidify your in-house capabilities for next generation.

Given all of these factors, I think you should be prepared to see some big name titles being announced on the horizon. Clearly some will be held out for the next generation, but the economics of the situation make it difficult for most publishers to hold them back.

The only real argument is that alot of us "harcore" gamers think that developers have taken this generation about as far as it can go technically. However, historically, this has never (see 8-bit & 16-bit generation) been a reason to stop development. Clearly the actual developers might long for better hardware, but the publishers and other "suits" won't care about that. And neither will 90% of the user base. Especially the 50% that have bought their hardware within the past 2.5-3 years.

It's inevitable. Resistance is futile. Get used to it. Blah, blah, blah.

 

[SyNapSe]

I think these points are where Backwards compatibility really crushes you. I'd imagine MS will be hesitant to have any critical titles come out in the 2nd half of next year.

Some people will want to sell their Xbox and move on to Xenon. If they do so.. how pissed will they be if Top Spin 2 is released next December.. knowing it will probably be two years before they get Top Spin 3 that they can play on their new Xenon.

I'm not big on Backwards Compat. normally, but if MS truly does launch Winter 2005. I can definately see the Xbox not having much of interest coming out after summer.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well we definetly won't be seeing another GT this gen. Kaz has already said they've done all they can with the series on the PS2 and will wait for the PS3 to do anymore. Same goes for MGS3, Kojima was worried enough about the leap over MGS2 with MGS3. I don't think he'll try for another this gen outside of MGS Online.

I wouldn't really expect more from the really top tier franchises other than spinoffs at most.

 

[Ranger X]

2005 will not be a "big fat sequels holiday" like what we will see in 2004 i'm sure.
2006 will be the next big year of sequels to boost the new consoles and truly create "the next generation".

 

[sonycowboy]

2005 will not be a "big fat sequels holiday" like what we will see in 2004 i'm sure.
2006 will be the next big year of sequels to boost the new consoles and truly create "the next generation".

2006 is not possible for a "big year of sequels" based on installed base. You may see some serious heavy hitters (Halo 3, GT5), but nothing like what we're seeing this year.

In late 2006, there will probably be less than 6-8 million worldwide installed base vs ~170 million for the current generation. 6-8 million (with 5-6 million being western regions - US/UK,etc) will not support the sales required for multiple releases of these franchises.

 

[Ranger X]

Yeah but regardless of sales, if Sony says that next gen begin seriously in (let's say) late 2006, the consoles makers will push develloper into fat sequel the make the new machine take over. It's happening every gen. Every generation they give some major sequels at the beginning so the interest of people is shifting on the new machines.
I really doubt Sony will extend the PS2 over 2006. I think they aren't only considering your sales argument though i agree with it and probably they do to.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"I really doubt Sony will extend the PS2 over 2006."

I don't know if they want to extend it, but Kaz says if they have to they will extend it. He seems to be hinting that if they released the PS3 when people expect it wouldn't be that much of a leap over existing systems, atleast not to the point of last gen games compared to this gen. That's the type of leap Sony wants.

 

[human5892]

"I really doubt Sony will extend the PS2 over 2006."

I don't know if they want to extend it, but Kaz says if they have to they will extend it. He seems to be hinting that if they released the PS3 when people expect it wouldn't be that much of a leap over existing systems, atleast not to the point of last gen games compared to this gen. That's the type of leap Sony wants.

I hope Sony and Nintendo wait for a good long time, just for this reason (I exclude Microsoft since they seem pretty intent on jumping the gun). I want a big jump, and I also think the systems of this generation are finally coming into their own.

No new generation until Fall 2006...at the earliest, plzkthxbye.

 

[Ranger X]

To have the new console when it's going to be worth the step? I totally agree that. But competition says "no no" to Sony.

 

[SolidSnakex]

No new generation until Fall 2006...at the earliest, plzkthxbye.

The way Sony's been talking it actually seems like they might try to push for a 7 year cycle for the PS3 (up till 2007).

"But competition says "no no" to Sony."

Yah that's the one risk. With the competition pushing to start the next gen earlier than it should there's always a risk for them to lose their market by people who're impressed by the graphics leap that will be there even if it's not completely significant. But Sony seems very serious about making their graphics leap atleast atleast as big if not bigger than last gens. So if MS does push for a 2005, there's a chance that Sony and maybe even Nintendo are going to release something that'll completely overshadow their system graphically. I'm interested in seeing exactly what MS first X2 games look like or the real demos when it's unveiled to see just how big of a leap it is over this gen. Because Sony might have a real good point about not pushing for an early exit out fo this gen.

 

[Ranger X]

With the competition pushing to start the next gen earlier than it should there's always a risk for them to lose their market by people who're impressed by the graphics leap that will be there even if it's not completely significant.

Hell yeah... especially when you can easily notice that many people consider the Xbox a major graphic leap over the PS2 (at least they sound like that!!) ---- can i laugh please? lol

 

[Rhindle]

The transition to development for new platforms is goingto be slower than last gen, but it will still happen fairly rapidly.

As far as Xbox development, most new projects have already shifted to Xenon. That's why there were very few new Xbox projects announced at E3.

The initial user base for a new platform is small -- but launch titles have historically sold very well -- even if they are mediocre. If you deliver a great launch title, it will continue to sell well as the userbase grows -- see Halo. Delivering games early in a console's life is a very attractive proposition, unless there is a high risk that the console will bomb -- which is not the case with Xenon or PS3.

The PS2-PS3 transition will be slower, because no one really knows for sure when PS3 will launch. It could very well slip in 2007. So there has been no slow down in PS2 development, and many franchises could see another sequel on PS2.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Hell yeah... especially when you can easily notice that many people consider the Xbox a major graphic leap over the PS2 (at least they sound like that!!) ---- can i laugh please? lol

Some people will obviously jump to it. The question is how many will? Are there going to people who just stick with this gen since both Sony and Nintendo seem to be willing to stick with this gen for around a year after the Xbox 2 is released? And how will people react when they see the PS3 and Revolution which almost certainly will be a step up from Xbox 2 graphics? There are alot of questions. But one thing the past has shown in the industry, launching first isn't a good thing. The Xbox 2 could change that though.

 

[sonycowboy]

The initial user base for a new platform is small -- but launch titles have historically sold very well -- even if they are mediocre. If you deliver a great launch title, it will continue to sell well as the userbase grows -- see Halo. Delivering games early in a console's life is a very attractive proposition, unless there is a high risk that the console will bomb -- which is not the case with Xenon or PS3.

I agree .. to an extent. When you look at the best selling games this generation, you'll see a a definite lean toward the launch window.

Top 11 (as of April 2004)
1 PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO:VICE 5,973,585
2 PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO 3 5,358,994 (< 12 months after launch)
3 PS2 GRAN TURISMO 3:A-SPEC 3,457,047 (~9 months after launch)
4 PS2 MADDEN NFL 2004 3,370,794
5 XBX HALO 3,184,744 (launch)
6 PS2 MADDEN NFL 2003 2,719,667
7 GCN SUPER SMASH BRO MELEE 2,239,166 (launch)
8 PS2 FINAL FANTASY X 2,083,902 (13 months after launch)
9 PS2 TONY HAWKS PRO SKATR3 2,069,487 (~12 months after launch)
10 PS2 MEDAL HONOR FRONTLINE 2,059,385
11 PS2 METAL GEAR SOLID 2 2,008,058 (~12 months after launch)

However, many games have sold well at launch not because they're great games, but because launch titles are very limited (< 20-30 games). If you had more titles in the launch window, those numbers would go way down because people have choice.

If XboxNext does launch in 2005, you will definitely see M$ hold back first party titles, but I would bet you will still see Ubisoft, Tecmo, EA, Activision, Midway, etc continue to support it quite well and to not support the XboxNext nearly as heavily. They will allocate their resources in a much more fiscally responsible manner this time vs last generation.

 

[jarrod]

There are alot of questions. But one thing the past has shown in the industry, launching first isn't a good thing. The Xbox 2 could change that though.

Genesis changed that a decade ago actually. And it was a step behind overall SNES performance as well when Nintendo finally entered the market, yet was still a major upset until Sega mismanaged themselves into various dropped add-ons... not saying Xenon is going to do the same but there is a precedent for this sort of thing before in the industry.

 

[human5892]

Genesis changed that a decade ago actually. And it was a step behind performance SNES as well when Nintendo finally entered the market, yet was still a major upset... not saying Xenon is going to do the same but there is a precedent for this sort of thing before in the industry.

There is a precedent, but it was set at an earlier time in the industry, when console cycles were much less defined and the "casual gamer" (if such a distinction could even be made back then) was much less knowledgable about the industry than today. Even Joe Shmoe who buys the Matrix knows and understands that every so often, a new wave of consoles comes out from the Big Three...maybe this wasn't necessarily so in the Genesis days, where people (just as an example) might have believed the Genesis was the new standard, or something like that.

I'm not saying any of that is fact -- merely trying to illustrate that when the Genesis launched early and succeeded, the industry was a lot different. A more fitting example for today's standards (but still flawed in many ways) might be the Dreamcast, and we all know how that turned out...

When it comes down to it, though, I don't think history can tell us much about launching a console early, just because there's so many other variables involved.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Genesis changed that a decade ago actually. And it was a step behind performance SNES as well when Nintendo finally entered the market, yet was still a major upset... not saying Xenon is going to do the same but there is a precedent for this sort of thing before in the industry.

Well I meant in terms of winning that generation which is what MS wants to do. The Genesis did well but still lost in the long run. Plus now there's more than 2 platforms competing each generation.

 

[Bowser]

Actually SSB:M came out a month or so after launch, but it's close enough.

 

[jarrod]

Well I meant in terms of winning that generation which is what MS wants to do. The Genesis did well but still lost in the long run. Plus now there's more than 2 platforms competing each generation.

Yep, but Genesis didn't lose out until around 1994 really (and by then Sega had already shifted their internal focus to Saturn R&D). I doubt Microsoft realistically expects to be the market leader next gen, but if they can do what Genesis did and remain in the lead until 2008 or so, I'm sure Bill would be more than happy with that.

 

[sonycowboy]

Well I meant in terms of winning that generation which is what MS wants to do. The Genesis did well but still lost in the long run. Plus now there's more than 2 platforms competing each generation.

This is another reason why I think we'll see a delay. The industry is changing, maturing. All 3 players will be around for quite a while. The idea of "winning" will slowly go away. It will be about market share, which will bounce around between the hardware manufacturers. There concern will change from "winning" to making as much money as possible. And so will the publishers. Far too long publishers have fallen in lock-step with the manufacturers. They will focus much more on thier own timelines and goals as opposed to being a pawn of the various hardware manufacturers.

 

[jarrod]

There is a precedent, but it was set at an earlier time in the industry, when console cycles were much less defined and the "casual gamer" (if such a distinction could even be made back then) was much less knowledgable about the industry than today. Even Joe Shmoe who buys the Matrix knows and understands that every so often, a new wave of consoles comes out from the Big Three...maybe this wasn't necessarily so in the Genesis days, where people (just as an example) might have believed the Genesis was the new standard, or something like that.

I'm not saying any of that is fact -- merely trying to illustrate that when the Genesis launched early and succeeded, the industry was a lot different. A more fitting example for today's standards (but still flawed in many ways) might be the Dreamcast, and we all know how that turned out...

When it comes down to it, though, I don't think history can tell us much about launching a console early, just because there's so many other variables involved.

Until 1990, videogames in general were known as "Nintendo". NES had a tighter grip on the industry than any platform has had since, brand conscousness was just as strong and I'd argue games were just as mainstream when NES was hitting it's big strides in the late 1980s (fun fact, NES outsold PS1 in the US during their active lifespans)... what Sega managed with Genesis was honestly a miracle. It was them doing almost everything perfectly, from software to timing to advertising. In fact Sony based their PlayStation strategy on what Sega had done 5 years earlier (and it worked again).

 

[human5892]

Until 1990, videogames in general were known as "Nintendo". NES had a tighter grip on the industry than any platform has had since, brand conscousness was just as strong and I'd argue games were just as mainstream when NES was hitting it's big strides in the late 1980s (fun fact, NES outsold PS1 in the US during their active lifespans)... what Sega managed with Genesis was honestly a miracle. It was them doing almost everything perfectly, from software to timing to advertising. In fact Sony based their PlayStation strategy on what Sega had done 5 years earlier (and it worked again).

True, but as I said, the industry back then was not used to competition, or having a choice in consoles (that actually were viable and had a lot of games coming out). NES outsold PSOne, true, but it was without any significant competition to speak of, whereas PSone did it in the face of the Saturn and the N64. In cases of near-monopolies like the NES had, it can be incredibly hard for other competitors to break in...but if you get your details right like Sega did, it can also be incredibly easy.

Sega did do a great deal right, and I'm not disputing or downplaying the success of the Genesis, but I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate that success to the Xenon when just going on the basis of "they both launched/will launch first", especially when the landscape of the market was so different then.

 

[jarrod]

True, but as I said, the industry back then was not used to competition, or having a choice in consoles (that actually were viable and had a lot of games coming out). NES outsold PSOne, true, but it was without any significant competition to speak of, whereas PSone did it in the face of the Saturn and the N64. In cases of near-monopolies like the NES had, it can be incredibly hard for other competitors to break in...but if you get your details right like Sega did, it can also be incredibly easy.

You say NES had little competition but that itself ignores the fact that NES literally created it's market from scratch, what's heated competition in an established multimillion dollar market compared to no market at all? Is it harder selling 20+ million consoles in a dead market or a thriving one? Even if you aren't intending it, you're seriously downplaying what both Nintendo and Sega managed with NES/FC and Genesis/MD here... I'd also hardly classify doing about everything just right, as Sega did with Genesis, as easy.

Sega did do a great deal right, and I'm not disputing or downplaying the success of the Genesis, but I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate that success to the Xenon when just going on the basis of "they both launched/will launch first", especially when the landscape of the market was so different then.

I agree with that and again, I'm not saying how Xenon will/won't perform. I'm just saying there's a precedent for what Microsoft's aiming at, they're not attemtping the impossible here.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I agree .. to an extent. When you look at the best selling games this generation, you'll see a a definite lean toward the launch window.

Top 11 (as of April 2004)
1 PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO:VICE 5,973,585
2 PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO 3 5,358,994 (< 12 months after launch)
3 PS2 GRAN TURISMO 3:A-SPEC 3,457,047 (~9 months after launch)
4 PS2 MADDEN NFL 2004 3,370,794
5 XBX HALO 3,184,744 (launch)
6 PS2 MADDEN NFL 2003 2,719,667
7 GCN SUPER SMASH BRO MELEE 2,239,166 (launch)
8 PS2 FINAL FANTASY X 2,083,902 (13 months after launch)
9 PS2 TONY HAWKS PRO SKATR3 2,069,487 (~12 months after launch)
10 PS2 MEDAL HONOR FRONTLINE 2,059,385
11 PS2 METAL GEAR SOLID 2 2,008,058 (~12 months after launch)

However, many games have sold well at launch not because they're great games, but because launch titles are very limited (< 20-30 games). If you had more titles in the launch window, those numbers would go way down because people have choice.

If XboxNext does launch in 2005, you will definitely see M$ hold back first party titles, but I would bet you will still see Ubisoft, Tecmo, EA, Activision, Midway, etc continue to support it quite well and to not support the XboxNext nearly as heavily. They will allocate their resources in a much more fiscally responsible manner this time vs last generation.

Those sales are for the U.S only, I believe. I think you're looking at SSBM having more around 5-7 million units, worldwide. Most of those games, however, get relatively little sales outside of the U.S., so the list isn't really representetive of the whole industry.

 

[Rhindle]

I agree with that and again, I'm not saying how Xenon will/won't perform. I'm just saying there's a precedent for what Microsoft's aiming at, they're not attemtping the impossible here.

The precedent Microsoft is aiming for is the PS2. The perception that Dreamcast is part of the current gen is limited to gaming message boards.

There are plenty of reasons why PS2 has been so dominant, but I don't think anyone would argue that the first mover advantage over Xbox and GCN was a huge benefit.

 

[sonycowboy]

The precedent Microsoft is aiming for is the PS2. The perception that Dreamcast is part of the current gen is limited to gaming message boards.

There are plenty of reasons why PS2 has been so dominant, but I don't think anyone would argue that the first mover advantage over Xbox and GCN was a huge benefit.

Not true. Dreamcast was clearly aiming to be part of the "next gen". The fact that it died early doesn't change that. Also, if Microsoft truly believes that being "first" was the primary reason for the PS2's success, they are screwed. There are a whole host of factors, of which Sony's timing was one. Sony's third party relations, marketing, sucess in the previous generation, technological advance, and many others factored into it.

I'm not saying M$ won't succeed or even that being first won't help them get where they want to be (although it won't), I'm just saying that being first is a sad excuse for people who claim that was Sony's major reason for victory this generation.

 

[jedimike]

This is another reason why I think we'll see a delay. The industry is changing, maturing. All 3 players will be around for quite a while. The idea of "winning" will slowly go away. It will be about market share, which will bounce around between the hardware manufacturers. There concern will change from "winning" to making as much money as possible. And so will the publishers. Far too long publishers have fallen in lock-step with the manufacturers. They will focus much more on thier own timelines and goals as opposed to being a pawn of the various hardware manufacturers.

You're forgetting about the retailers. Retailers aren't going to miss a chance for a console launch (lucrative bundles, high profits). They will make shelf space for new consoles, which means less space for old consoles. Less space means that no one is going to see those Xbox/GC/PS2 titles and they won't sell.

I also think that you are overstating development costs for next gen consoles. All 3 players know that ease of development is a key factor. Just because the console is 3 to 4 times more powerful doesn't mean it costs 3 to 4 times as much to develop for. Plus publishers can have several different flavors of their most popular franchises, like the earlier Maddens which were on PS1 and PS2.

 

[sonycowboy]

You're forgetting about the retailers. Retailers aren't going to miss a chance for a console launch (lucrative bundles, high profits). They will make shelf space for new consoles, which means less space for old consoles. Less space means that no one is going to see those Xbox/GC/PS2 titles and they won't sell.

Publisher make no money on the hardware at all. The bundles are an attempt to make something. All of these transitions are just as hard on the retailers as they are on the publishers and they would love to see these franchises continue on the existing hardware. They've already got the customers.

I also think that you are overstating development costs for next gen consoles. All 3 players know that ease of development is a key factor. Just because the console is 3 to 4 times more powerful doesn't mean it costs 3 to 4 times as much to develop for. Plus publishers can have several different flavors of their most popular franchises, like the earlier Maddens which were on PS1 and PS2.

The consoles will be much more than 3-4 time more powerful. I think it's fair to assume that development costs will go up signicantly,especially as developers have working engines on the existing hardware.

The point is really one of a balancing act. Every cycle retailers, hardware manufacturers, and publishers have gotten clobbered for 18-24 months as the next cycle ramps up and the current cycle nosedives. I think this generation is the time they will wise up and try to smooth the curve to be more financially prudent.

 

[Fafalada]

Well we definetly won't be seeing another GT this gen. Kaz has already said they've done all they can with the series on the PS2 and will wait for the PS3 to do anymore.

No more sequells sure, but that won't stop them from releasing another 10-20 GT Concepts before PS3 hits.