PS3 and Blu-ray: A Match Made in Heaven?

IMPORTANT: I have nothing against the Playstation 3 or Blu-ray. Never having played the PS3 or watched a movie on Blu-ray, I really COULDN'T have anything against them. My statements about the PS3's current sales are based on the numbers as I know them, not my opinions or any data that I can directly and personally confirm. This is purely objective, from an economic standpoint, not from a gaming standpoint.

It certainly looks like Blu-ray is winning the format wars, which is exactly what Sony's Playstation division wanted. Sony has been reasoning all along that the success of Blu-ray would help the PS3, and their reasoning was relatively sound. However, now that both have been around for a while, we see Blu-ray with strong success and the PS3 trailing its competitors. Why?

I believe Sony was hoping Blu-ray and the PS3 would help each other, but it only ended up working one way: the PS3 helped Blu-ray, but Blu-ray didn't help the PS3. I believe Sony's mistake rests in the branding: rather than calling this device the Playstation 3, they should have given it a new name to separate it from its video game-focused predecessors. Why? Well, the only way someone can know that the PS3 plays Blu-ray movies is to seek information about it, but if you're not interested in a video game console, you're probably not going to check out the details. As such, to non-gamers, the PS3 is just a 600 dollar video game console. Advertising certainly helps bring the news to some, but for everyone else, Playstation=video game console.

Can I prove my theory? Of course not; I haven't conducted a mass survey or anything like that. However, price has always been labeled as the biggest factor hurting the PS3. The price is bad for a video game console, but not for a Blu-ray player. That indicates that people are primarily looking at it as a video game console; if they weren't, the price wouldn't turn them off.

It's understandable that Sony wouldn't want to give up the Playstation brand, but if that's the case, they should have left out the Blu-ray. If they did, while Blu-ray would have slightly less support, the PS3 would have much more because it would be cheaper. It seems Sony is beginning to realize that its functionality as a Blu-ray player is not selling the PS3, given that they've released a Blu-ray player that's cheaper than the console. Now they have to find a way to make the console much cheaper. Even analysts who predict the PS3 will win the console wars tend to base that prediction on the system having a massive price cut; if Sony doesn't deliver, it will turn out very differently.

Designing their console in part to sell another product was a mistake, one from which they seem to have learned. Now they have to rectify it in order for the PS3 to be as successful as they want it to be. They can't offer an alternate model without Blu-ray, because games are also on Blu-ray discs, so they'll have to figure out something else.

Back to our Roots

Let's check a trend, shall we?

Gamerankings scores by series, from old to new
Super Mario World: 96.7
Super Mario 64: 95.7
Super Mario Sunshine: 91.5

Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 97.5
Sonic Adventure: 87.2
Sonic Heroes: 74.4 (highest; xbox version)
Sonic and the Secret Rings: 70.8
Sonic the Hedgehog 2006: 46.2 (highest; xbox 360 version)

Soul Calibur: 96.4
Soul Calibur 2: 92.5 (highest; Gamecube version)
Soul Calibur 3: 86.5

Star Fox: 85.8
Star Fox 64: 89.8
Star Fox Assault: 70.8

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2: 94.9 (highest; Dreamcast version)
Tony Hawk's Underground: 90.9 (highest; PS2 version)
Tony Hawk's Project 8: 82 (highest; Xbox 360 version)

Pokemon Blue: 88.3
Pokemon Silver: 91.1
Pokemon Ruby: 83.8
Pokemon Diamond: 84.8

Notice the trend? Each new generation nets lower and lower scores for these popular franchises. Pokemon is the exception; we'll get to that later. Now think about this: New Super Mario Bros. and Sonic Rush were hailed for sticking to the roots of their franchises.

New technology creates great new opportunities. Sometimes they can be beneficial, like the jump to 3D in Super Mario 64 (one of the most popular in the series even though it didn't score as high as Super Mario World); other times it can be harmful, like touch screen control for Super Mario 64 DS. However, Super Mario 64 was a rare case. Generally, straying too far from a franchise's roots is not a good thing. On the flip side, staying too close to its roots hurt Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Still, because they didn't change drastically, the games got higher review scores than Sonic the Hedgehog, Tony Hawk's Project 8, and Star Fox Assault.

I also want to point out that Pokemon Silver and Star Fox 64 did better than their predecessors. These two games didn't add anything drastically new to their series', but they made use of new technology for strong benefits: Star Fox 64 got detailed, true 3D graphics and Pokemon Silver got color. That seems to be the best way to implement new technology.

A Gamer's Suggestions

I'm not an expert in business no matter how you slice it, but I am an expert in video games. On that note, I'm going to look at the biggest problem plaguing each console maker right now and give my thoughts on them. You may think it's pointless, and it may be, but I have a pretty good track record with video game-related predictions.

Sony's problem is obvious: people do not want to pay 600 dollars for a video game console. Sony's attempts to counter this problem are certainly true; it is cheap for a Blu-ray player, and it certainly does have the potential to last a long time. The problem is that the average consumer doesn't read gaming news sites and doesn't think about these benefits. The average consumer just sees a 600 dollar video game console. If a price cut is not economically viable for Sony right now, they should bring their defense to the public somehow. If they can dissuade the average consumer from seeing nothing but a 600 dollar game console, they might be more successful.

Nintendo's problem doesn't lie with the average consumer, but with the hardcore gamers. Now, I'm a hardcore gamer and I absolutely love my Wii, so I don't really agree with these concerns, but they certainly exist. On that note, Nintendo needs more hardcore games to snag the hardcore gamers. I suggest they get a move on with Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Metroid Prime 3. They're certainly getting started, but they need to pick it up.

Microsoft is doing great in North America, and pretty good in Europe, but it's lacking in Japan. Japanese gamers like RPGs, plain and simple. When popular Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu polled its readers to get the top 10 video games of all time just a couple years ago, the only game on the list not made by RPG giant Square-Enix (or one of its two parts) was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time at number 10. So Microsoft needs more RPGs to snag Japan. Blue Dragon was good, but they need more. Microsoft, keep working with publishers.

Video Game Companies can Learn from Comic Companies

Competition is at the very heart of capitalism. We as gamers should be glad that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are trying to beat each other because that ensures we'll get the highest quality gaming experience. The problem is, sometimes the competition goes beyond the realm of business. Gamers are certainly more responsible for the console wars problem than the game companies, but representatives of the Big Three make comments that don't exactly help matters.

They're totally different from another well-known set of rivals: Marvel and DC Comics. Probably the two biggest comic book companies around, they are in fierce competition for readership. But there's no bad blood between them; in fact, they often publish cross-overs featuring characters owned by both companies. Now imagine the video game equivalent of that: an official, retail-sold game featuring Mario, Master Chief, and Kratos. Ok, I'll give you a second to stop laughing.

It's preposterous, of course; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would NEVER work together like that. But why not? Why are video game companies so different from comic companies? Why is it that Link will never meet Jak or Kameo, but Superman has met Spiderman at least twice?

Maybe crossovers are taking it a little too far; baby steps at first, right? So here's a challenge to the Big Three: try being friendlier with each other. Poke fun at each other playfully. Bungie, a second-party developer for Microsoft, has provided a good example. When Shigeru Miyamoto said he could have made a game like Halo but decided on a different path, many people, including people at Bungie, took the comment as Shiggy dismissing Halo's quality and success. I don't think that's what he meant at all; Reggie is the only guy at Nintendo who's big on the trash talk. But Bungie responded by saying they're working on a side-scrolling game featuring two brothers who are plumbers. That's a friendly jab; it's a good start.

Who knows; if the Big Three start playing nice with each other, we may see a day when the "console wars" don't matter. Who knows; we may even see Ratchet and Joanna Dark in a future Super Smash Bros. game.

Fortune Faded

First of all, for those who didn't know, "Fortune Faded" is the name of a song by Red Hot Chili Peppers.

The gaming world has, or at least its blog comments and message boards have, been filled with talk about the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine. The cover shows a silhouette of a hand holding a Wii Remote with the words "How Wii Won". Needless to say, many gamers are outraged, as the console wars are not over yet (in fact, they've just begun). As you know if you've been reading this blog, I'm against "console wars" anyway, but I agree that it's way too early, as far as gamers are concerned, to declare a winner.

But as far as Fortune is concerned, the timing is perfect. Gamers shouldn't get mad or excited about what Fortune says, because Fortune is not a gaming magazine. Fortune doesn't cover games, features, or variety; they cover business. And from a business standpoint, Wii certainly is the winner. That doesn't mean it will sell the most consoles or have the best games; again, Fortune doesn't care about that. They care that Wii is cheap to produce, selling well, and netting Nintendo a profit for each system sold. The way Fortune is looking at it, what they're saying is totally true.

Don't look at the Fortune cover as the magazine's view on the console wars as gamers know them, because that's not what it's saying.

Add-ons Never Win

It is completely against the point of this blog for me to defend one video game company over another under normal circumstances. However, I've been hearing something a lot that is severely unfair to one such company, and unlike with most similar cases, I haven't seen a lot of defense. That's why, in the interest of balance, I'm going to present the reason why I believe the SNES Playstation would have failed.

First, a little background for those who need it. The Playstation was originally the result of Nintendo working with Sony to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). At some point, however, the deal fell through and Sony instead turned Playstation into a new, standalone console themselves. When the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64, people started forming the conclusion that Nintendo brought its own demise by severing the deal with Sony. They believe that if Nintendo had stuck with it, Sony would not be a competitor and Nintendo would have continued to rule the industry. Now, they reason, Nintendo is paying for its mistake.

But that belief completely contradicts what video game history has told us: add-ons never win. Sega's equivalent of the original Playstation concept, the Sega CD, is a good example. The Sega CD (or Sega Mega CD depending on your region) is known for Sonic CD and a lot of terrible FMV-based games (look up "Night Trap" if you don't know what I mean). Sony's own EyeToy, while successful by peripheral standards, did not sell all that well overall. Nintendo's 64DD, a disk-based add-on for the N64, only came out in Japan and was not even very popular there. Therefore, the odds of the SNES Playstation being a success were pretty low. If nothing else, I think everyone can agree on that point.

So if the SNES Playstation failed, would Sony just give up on video games? Not likely. There is certainly the possibility that Sony would leave the video game business, but with the industry growing at the time, it's not likely. I believe, in the face of the SNES Playstation failing, Sony would decide to make its own console anyway. Sony's a huge company; they could afford the experiment.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is not and has never been "dead." While the N64 and Gamecube didn't sell as well as Sony's counterparts, they sold considerably and crushed their Sega counterparts. With the recent success of the DS and Wii, Nintendo is doing fine. To say Nintendo was dead because Sony's products sold better would be like saying Sony's dead because the PS3 and PSP aren't doing as well as their Nintendo counterparts.

The point is, it's unfair to say that Nintendo acted stupidly in severing its deal with Sony. The deal would probably have been disastrous for Nintendo, and Sony wouldn't give up easily.