Quote:
Merge all the hardcore companies into one big one like some big transformer or power ranger robot? No, there's no business sense in that.
All the companies you picked would have to trim their releases for the big company to stay viable -- there is only so much content that can be supported by one organization. This is one of Sega's current problems -- they keep throwing out stuff that isn't being bought. They haven't been taking a look at the market -- all their innovation or whatnot is great, but if they don't pay attention to what the market wants, no one will buy it. Don't forget that the current Sega is actually a mix of numerous different development companies.
The stuff that sega has been releasing is enough to get an existing loyal fanbase interested in thier games for the long term. The problem is they forget to listen to what those fans really want to sustain the interest over a long time like nintendo. The reason people still play Zelda, KOF, SF, RE is because companies have learnt to serve an existing fanbase over a period of time and built that loyalty over time. So you have return customers who are confident in what that company brings out and they know where to go to find those games. (EA for example) Sega lost a bit of thier identity amoungst the masses of other third parties competing for attention on an overcrowded platform. Sure sega has what it takes to beat EA, but it's a slow process that requires persistance and patience and brand building. But you can still plan ahead and with careful timing, steal some of the market away whilst still worrying about the here and now and all the short term stuff. (ie actually making enough to survive which sega is actually doing.)
Mindshare amoungst fans who really know you, is more important than mindshare amoungst the general public whos decisions are more fickle and unreliable in thier purchases of unfamiliar brands they don't feel secure with. The hope is that eventually, through word of mouth, they will be pressured to try it out but as I said it takes time to build that brand again. I'm just saying if sega stay third party in the long term it may harm thier image as just another niche developer that nobody, fans included, can identify with anymore. )
Quote:
One big flaw in your plan is market penetration of the system itself. Sure, the early adopters will eat it up. Massive sales for the first 3 weeks, moderate sales for the next 3 months. Who's to say that 6 months after launch the system will still be selling?
Do the homework, find out what people want by listening, deliver it to them,(yeah a SOR would be awesome, a new phantasy star, a new nights etc. Start building vertically from that and I garuantee others will be curious enough to try it out and awareness will grow.) and plan for the long term future. Beat your opponent with more intelligent decision-making and quicker response. Again, failure to identify who it is you are serving makes you less aware of future decisions. If you learn from mistakes you can avoid making them all over again as long as you have isolated the reason for that failure.
Quote:
No, you can't blitz the market with advertising for a niche product -- MS tried that, and they still aren't beating Nintendo. Hell, Nintendo is not advertising and they are keeping MS at bay. Why is this?* It's certainly not Japanese arcade games.
Nintendo has lost some of it's profits from MS simply by being in the race with Sony. That's a good enough start considering MSs real goal was just to get its foot in the door to capitalise on BB based entertainment and not games.(the gaming side is only a small part of it when you consider the bigger picture of sony wanting to take control of the loungeroom through future models of PS as an entertainment hub for the family. Not evident yet but surely in the future.) They've got some mindshare here in Australia for example, (not the largest market but a good small-scale model in testing markets) where nintendo, although recognised as a strong contender just isn't performing well at all. Soon nintendo will also be competing in the handheld market with other contenders taking away thier marketshare unless they offer better deals and reduce thier former arrogance to compensate for the increased competition. The GBASP is a good start as its a sign nintendo are actually listening to what people had originally wished for. (nintendo has a tendancy to never announce things early for suggestions and modifications to design until it is too late and the things is brought out before changes can be made. Take the silly button layout of the GC controller or the complaints with original GBA for example)
Quote:
The fact of the matter is you are not going to be able to give your developers a situation to make profits on with arcade stuff unless you manage to obtain some insane marketshare. Sega made a nice attempt at this and it failed -- mainly because they weren't able to secure the capital needed to maintain their advertising and market presence. What is to say this effort won't suffer the same fate? Sony is entrenched, there is no way anything like this will be able to kick them out of the market. People know and trust the Playstation brand, so attempting to convince them otherwise is suicide. Any console that caters to the hardCORE has to first cater to the masses.
People trusted nintendos brand once. Sega took 50% of the market. (in what otherwise was a monopoly. And why, do you ask? Because of TIMING. It's as though nintendo didn't expect it, and was too slow to adapt, so sega could take advantage by being the more agile and stealing from the slower giant which had to consider its nes userbase while sega could capture the early adopters who were eager and ready to move to the 16 bit generation.)
..Similarly, people trusted sony's brand once. Maybe the same will happen again and consumers will lose confidence in sony as many of my own gamer friends have? (Again a reoccuring theme: PS1 came out at a great TIME. It took people by surprise (sony was not known for gamesystems) just like the genesis during the NES generation which resulted in a loss of market for nintendo.) I barely even touch my ps2 anymore and spend most of the time on pc, gC and xbox games.
Sorry man, brand image doesn't last forever since console generations do not require long term investments by the consumers. Say I'm Joe Mainstreamer and will only bother buying 1 console because certain titles I like aren't appearing for the platform I own: At any time I could choose to sell the ps2 and buy an xbox based soley on developer support. It's not the brand that makes them tough in my books, it's the developer support as a major factor too since they hold the ip to very valuable and recognisable franchises, and also the talent behind the creation of those things.
Because consoles get upgraded every generation; lasting only a few years, (and remember the agressive price wars which have closed the gaps between generation leaps) you can lose the lead as fast as you gain it, if you aren't paying attention.
Quote:
Really, that's what all this talk of Sega getting back into the market is about -- the hardCORE versus the masses. The rabid old schoolers don't like sharing the same space with the unwashed, they never have. This attitude is why the old schoolers periodically proclaim this or that to be "ruined" when mainstreamers find out about it -- gaming, anime, role playing, rhythm games, etc. The hardCORE don't want to share their console -- somehow, the PS2 isn't good enough for Sega's games even though it can handle them rather competently. They like Sega publishing on the Xbox because neither the system nor Sega's Xbox games sell, which translates to the mainstream is leaving their hobby alone.
Nah, it's more because ps2 was a crappy system to begin with. No offense, I truly believe this. It had poor design, the graphics did not live up to the hype,(it was underwhelming even for DC standards) development for it early on meant programmers had to rethink how they were to program. It's only because of the userbase that made the effort worth it for developers to keep supporting it. (konami, technically one of the best japanese developers mentioned how much of a technical headache it was working on the system) But we clearly see that with off the shelf technology you can achieve better results. Look at the console comparisons of games written for all 3 consoles. I personally believe that a lot of time was wasted because of the ps2s design. Even if a game was written from the ground up for ps2 there's still the question of whether the game is using the system to its full potential and whether its full potential will even matter in comparison to other machines by the time it is tapped.
But you made a good point about hardcore fans. Generally the mainstream are dumber, (less informered) and the hardcore are more intelligent, refined, articulate about why things suck or do not suck. (but this is good thing)
Most people care that thier favoured games appear on a system that they know would improve the game and to them the mainstream are out to wreck thier hobby just like a bad hollywood movie is out to wreck thier favourite game/comic/anime series because it tries too hard to appeal to everyone and loses the individual ingredients that made it so special when it was closer to its original vision. (take the street fighter or the later Batman movies for example.) One of the reasons people are so protective of original works retaining their quality has to do with the fact that if it is not done properly, in some instances it is better off not being done at ALL. When something is done badly to try to appeal to more people it wrecks the image of the original thing and loses integrity. I always hate it when something must be "dumbed down" for mass consumption and I make no apologies for it because of my belief that it really does ruin and make a bad name for the original. (I liked JSR over JSRF, normal controls in fighters vs stupid EO modes, original games who seem inspired and fresh vs endless sequels that seem souless and tacked onto the original concept and unfined (eg crazy taxi 3) etc. Nothing to be ashamed of man. In fact I feel more sorry for the masses because of what they miss out on.)
Having said all that, I believe most sega fanboys are generally more informed than sony fanboys. :D They put forth a better case to thier arguments, give much more indepth reasons for why certain games are better than others, and generally do not insult the other side because they are more prepared and confident due to thier experience with comparing both systems and highlighting the technical strengths/weaknesses of either side without needing to bring out sales charts and a 'superiour userbase' as reasons for why another console is 'better' than another. (as if 'market share', is justification for supporting a poorer product :D)
Quote:
Let's look at model train collecting for a moment. There aren't that many people who build model train setups anymore -- every once in a while it has a bit of a comeback, but then people get tired of it and sales go down again. There are always be a subset of rabid train collectors who still buy stuff -- but they don't buy much because there aren't that many of them. This doesn't let the model train manufacturers make large amounts of any particular model, since most collectors can't buy everything produced. They have to stick to small production runs and high prices in order to make profit. Something you can compare it to in the gaming world would be the NeoGeo market.
Sega's downfall with the Dreamcast is they tried to sell it to people with the same mindset as the model train collectors, but failed to reach out to the unwashed masses.
But then what happens is if they start cloning army men, Tomb raider, gta...what's the point of calling yourself sega? Why not change the name? (to EA?) Part of the reason I like them is for the unique games they make because it shows others they can lead. (like I said they are the first with lots of innovations alongside nintendo) There's a certain style, image, magic even, to how they make thier games that gives them thier identity. Maybe in years to come they will be recognised and old classics will be treasured as masterpieces by the greater masses who look back to thier old catalogue of games? (fat chance) But the point is if they can make enough to at least survive (third party now, considering hardware manufactuer in future) whilst retaining thier identity/still have freedom as artists, then isn't that more important? Why work on something you don't like doing?
It always brings me pleasure when a developer will give details of thier inspiration for a game they made, and why they made it, and it usually has nothing to do with "well, oh because the market researchers told us these genres sell the most and that was ..umm.. my inspiration.". (like most third party publishers have to because publishers/shareholders need appeasment.) It shows they are thinking and aren't influenced so much by trends, or simply trying to get money because somebody above them has pressured them based purely on what is selling/popular for that year.
Don't you just hate it, for example, when you watch a hollywood movie and you see 100s of cliches that exist in just about every other movie you've ever seen before? As hardcore gamers we get tired easier than the casuals and are more cranky because we need more stimulation.
Quote:
You can't resurrect arcades with this approach. Actually, arcades are beyond repair as the current model stands. Numerous attempts have been made to bring them back, each meeting with little success on a large scale. No one has yet figured out how to entice people to come into the arcades when they have arcade-perfect ports of games at home -- but that's another discussion.
To me arcades are fine as they are. As a social hangout for likeminded gamers wanting to challenge each other in person or learn to get better. You tend to learn more about a game when you are exposed to others playing and observing things you wouldn't normally have thought of when playing in isolation at home, which is why I think racers and fighting games are popular and still played a lot in my local arcade. (linked daytona, KOF, GGXX) Just like how people still go to movie theatres with friends who they can chat to about the movie even with the existance of vcrs/dvd players competing for the same thing, so too can arcades co-exist alongside home gaming platforms. It's just a matter of coming up with non-gimmicky game concepts that are enjoyable in both isolated single player modes and in multiplayer in-person modes so that the replayability and depth of the game attracts the person to come back again as a return customer to that arcade.
Again, it comes back to replayability and good game design as I mentioned before, because as a rule I will pump more money in a game with multiple layers of challenge, skill, and strategy than one that is technologically impressive and expensive, but shallow. In the end if someone feels cheated or ripped off, they will not return. If you want to make money, you have to attract those existing loyal customers (people who regularly hang out in arcades for hours) for return visits; targetting and getting to know your customers and aiming for them (the loyal dedicated few) to survive in the long term rather than ripping them off in the short term and drawing people away from arcades to the home, where they won't come back.
