Tassadar said:
Yeah but history has also shown that a single company will not always have the lead. History has also shown that mistakes in consoles can have huge consequences for a company (ie Sega Dreamcast, Atari, what have you).
History hasn't really shown anything conclusive. There's only one remotely similar example, which is Nintendo's fall-from-grace by designing the N64 around a reactionary, conservative decision to sacrifice its capabilities in favor of a pointless, slightly-harder-to-pirate (Although time has shown--which games can you find ROMs for every smash hit within 30 minutes of searching--N64 or PS1?) storage medium.
Nintendo lost their two-generation lead with NES/SNES (although arguably, the Genesis did very well on its own ground, especially worldwide and in Japan) because of their backwards decision with N64 and Sony's relatively forward thinking with PS1.
Sony stole that lead, and has kept it until now. There's no 'precedent' that Sony's following--only Nintendo's previous failure, and if anything, this would be similar to ATi and nVidia constantly battling it out for superiority, except with more at stake.
Sub said:
History has shown that there was never a company #1 for three generations in a row. We shall see.
In an industry that's only been around for the past 20-30 years, or in the case of consoles, a little less, the absence of something is hardly "evidence against it." Sony's shown no signs of slowing down--they still have the third party support (among other things) that made their systems smash hits in the first place.
It would be foolish to dismiss the undisputed champion of the last two generations simply because of a relatively modest price difference (especially if you compare the $599 model to the $400 XB360 model--what happens to that "$400 price" if you buy the HD-DVD add-on?)
When PS3 comes out and we start seeing Bluray quality movies and 1080p games, I think people will see the difference between the competition. XB360 will be just as expensive with the HD-DVD add-on, but with less and inferior games (just like with PS2/X-box) and Nintendo will be left-over, mostly appealing to families and children.
I really don't see much changing. The price certainly is surprising, but you only have to pay it once, and the difference isn't staggering. Even if sales are a bit slow at first, the first time a must-have comes out (like MGS4, the next Final Fantasy, etc)--you'll see people forgetting about the price (or possibly dealing with a price drop) and the system will re-assert itself as leader.
Like I've been saying all along, history and precedent are valuable. As far as XB360/PS3 are concerned, there's definitely going to be a "next-gen winner," and if you take Microsoft's record--a $300 system with only a handful of games worth owning--the winner(s) are pretty predictable. Sony and Nintendo will "win" this next generation.
Edit:
Kurt` said:
History has also shown that overpriced consoles don't fair too well.
*looks at Neo-Geo*
CDi and 3DO are also good examples of that. However, neither of them had either the marketing expertise, third party support or technological framework that Sony has. Also, Neo-Geo was
outrageously priced. Nobody in their right mind would buy it. The PS3 is merely "very highly priced." $499 and $599 respectively aren't impossible to afford. And this time, the "competition" is just as expensive, like I've mentioned above--the XB360 and the HD-DVD will cost you about the same as a PS3.
