When an electronic device has sales as dominant as the Playstation 2, it becomes an industry model. Launching a year before the Xbox and Gamecube, the Playstation 2 built up large sales lead and never let go. Nintendo fans took note: they long debated that the Gamecube’s successor should launch first. Microsoft apparently took note also: they have launched the Xbox 360 a year ahead of the Wii and Playstation 3. So is launching a video game console well ahead of the competition a ticket to success?
The answer is yes, but only if the company can take advantage of the extra time. How so? Consider the first year of the Playstation 2. The system launched in North America on October 26, 2000, with a system shortage and high demand. Knocks against the system included shoddy manufacturing, a lack of power, and being hard to develop games for. Yet the next year saw Sony secure many high profile games as exclusives, while DVD playback ability proved to be a goldmine as the storage medium became the norm in most households for playing movies. By the time the Xbox and Gamecube arrived a year later, their launch titles were competing against Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec, Grand Theft Auto III, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, and the upcoming release of Final Fantasy X. With great games and DVD playback, the Playstation 2 became the obvious choice for the mainstream gamer.
So what is the moral of the story? Launching first will only bring success if you can grow your fanbase and greatly appeal to the mass market before your competitors launch their products. Every established system has a loyal base of customers, but the Playstation 2 brought value and appeal to casual and non-gamers because of the DVD playback. It also appealed to the core gamers with no brand loyalty because of all the great exclusive games, and the Grand Theft Auto craze certainly helped. The result: 100+ million consoles shipped.
This is exactly what Microsoft has failed to do with the Xbox 360. Don’t get me wrong, the system has some good games, with more coming out in the next few months, but not anywhere near the extent of the Playstation 2. Halo 3, the game with the most mainstream appeal, is probably a year away. There is also nothing to capture the casual and non-gamer. Microsoft has a great online model, but that is geared more towards core gamers, and has nowhere near the same appeal as DVD playback did in 2001 and 2002. By failing to expand the 360’s userbase beyond the loyal customers who were happy with the Xbox, Microsoft has not and will not repeat the success of the Playstation 2 this generation.
What does this mean for the Nintendo and the Wii? Visit Infendo on Friday and find out…
Blah, I'm a 360 owner since launch and have enjoyed it more than any other console I've owned since the 16-bit era, but I have to agree.Microsoft did not push this year's start to the fullest. Gears of War and Halo 3 should have been launched this summer to try and secure more in home units. Fable 2 would have been nice and Oblivion closer to launch ('course they did sell out at that point…).I'm not anti-Sony, I'm just not interested in anything they've said they are doing.I really think the Wii is set up to shine, and I personally can't wait.
I dont think Halo 3 is a "mainstream" draw. Xbox Live Arcade is the key to drawing a broader range of gamers to the 360. It will be interesting to see Sony's response to Live Arcade.
In my opinion, MS launched the 360 at least half a year too early. They had to do it to dominate the Holiday shopping, of course, but that launch was very rushed. It would be like Nintendo launching a new console without a Mario or Pokémon title within a year of the launch date.MS was supposed to give a final knock-out punch to Sony by releasing Halo 3 on the same day the PS3 launched, but even with the PS3 delay, they couldn't do it. THAT is going to be MicroSoft's real blunder if the PS3 dominates.But they still have time… Very few people will be able to get a PS3 for the first three months or so after the launch. Still, I don't see a Halo 3 anywhere in the horizon yet.
Usually I love the articles up here, but this one misses a really large point, and it's called Dreamcast.I'm not saying Dreamcast had great non-core gaming/features (though it's initial line up did seem equally as varied and far more polished than PS2's), but coming out first not only seemed to not offer any advantage whatsoever, it actually appeared to act as a real disadvantage.In fact this disadvantage was so strong, it's made modern bloggers forget it existed.Essentially it was so early it was easily out-moded. Or more importantly, it was SEEN to be so outmoded. I do feel that besides the opinion of the internet, playstation3 might still appear as the third coming to average consumers (the price is less of an issue when you consider most non-core gamers don't buy systems until they're cheaper anyway). Wii can avoid being out-moded the same way DS has – by differentiating in new creative ways.Essentially I agree with your argument about 360's inability to take advantage of that year. But I would go further and argue that coming out early never helps. You can't force the switch if the consumers don't want it yet. Encombancy has a strong effect, but most important in timing is figuring out when the consumers are prepared for another round. PS1 got it right while N64 left it too late. PS2 got it right while Dreamcast was too early and GC+XBox were too late. 360's clearly too early from almost every perspective, and if LARGE shipments of PS3 don't arrive until mid-2007 then I feel they've made it too late.But who knows.
You do, apparently.Launching first is debatable to begin with. There is no first, there's only a proper. Anyone who launches "first" admits that they are in fact launching early, because that lead time only ensures that early adopters will buy that system since it's been rushed out. On the other hand, if you wait the sufficient amount of time, you release a much better prepared console. All 3 systems prove this. Especially when you look at the fact that 360's games are aging before your eyes compared to PS3's and that both the "late" systems have motion sensing wireless controllers and better launch lineups.-R
The dreamcast lost the war because of the Sony Ps2 hype in full market domination. Not considering the financial trouble SEGA was having kind of push them to the edge of bankruptcy.The 360 could have controlled the market by now if the had released they big budget titles by today. They can't sell more than a couple systems everyday in Japan, Which may not be the biggest gaming market today, but the developers are there making games for japanese & americans gamers. Them not helping your product is a big mistake… That's what they get for putting all their $$$ into Tecmo and making that idiot a rockstar that wear black shades indoors… I can't believe they could put a lot more money into "fake boob physics" instead of making a whole new game…
You comments are noted, anonymous. I'd like to weigh in with my thoughts:I'm not really sure if the Dreamcast was an attempt at launching first as much as it was an attempt at getting gamers to remember SEGA again. Launching a high powered system (compared to N64 and PS1) a few years in definintely caught people's attentions. Though a nice console, it just didn't work out.
Rollin:You touched on a few points I want to include in "part 2." And you are also right, there are disadvantages to launching first (system shortages, bugs, rushed/poor development tools, rushed/poor launch games, etc).When launch info was scarce, and Nintendo wanted to beat the competition for launch, many Nintendo fanboys were excited because they would get the "PS2 advantage". Ever since my Gamecube Heaven days, I've been researching and analyzing what exactly allowed Sony to gain and keep this lead by launching early. GCH shut its doors (RIP) before I finished the article, but my conclusions were contained in this article. The time since then has allowed extra time to see MS's 360 early launch play out, and it has played out just as I expected.