This post is going to be talking about how to make a successful console surrounding the Atari Box and what it will have to do to be a successful console, using previous console generations, successes and failures, to give us a guideline of what will have to be done if it wants to succeed.
If Nintendo has taught us anything in the past few years with the Wii U, GameCube, and to a different extent, the Virtual Boy, there are very clear things that you can do to either increase your odds or guarantee your failure.
So, first off, the very first thing I want to talk about is the brand because, while there are other more important factors in whether a console is successful or not, branding and brand recognition can go a long way to improve your odds.
The very first thing you can do is market your console as something that is easy to recognize and easy to get behind. So far, of every console distributor whose been a titan in the console wars, Sony has probably been the best at this. Their first console the PlayStation was easy to wrap your mind around and also something that had a prior history that influenced its success, that being Sony's former relationship with Nintendo and what the PlayStation was going to be before what we finally got. Then every home console to date has had some relevance to the PlayStation brand that signifies what you're buying based on the title: PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation 4 are all very simple in how they tell you that it's the next in line for a console that you might have previously bought. Then you have the PS4 Slim, which is a PS4 with less space consumption and a lower price for those who had not yet bought the original, and the PS4 Pro which is the same price as the original but quite a bit more powerful.
Microsoft was a bit less good at this. The XBox brand had a bit less going for it due to lack of prior history but the brand recognition in later consoles was fairly decent, if declining pretty steadily. The sequel to the XBox was the XBox 360. This wasn't the most forward thinking title to give the console, since there's really no way to follow up 360 but at least the title indicated that it was part of the XBox brand. Then we got the XBox One, which is the second biggest screw up in terms of branding, as it gives people the wrong impression on what it is in the XBox lineup. Those who get that it's them going back to their roots will understand but many who are simply looking for a gaming device to buy probably won't get the reasoning behind it automatically. Then, after that we got the XBox One S, which is a little bit better since, once you know what an XBox One is, you can pretty easily tell that the S is supposed to mean slim or small. Then the parallel of the PS4 Pro is the XBox One X. Speaking of branding, this is really stupid. At the E3 conference where this was shown off, they stated they chose the X because it's the coolest letter in the Alphabet, which I guess is a pretty simple, if elementary reason to pick it. However, what is the XBox One X? If you look at that title, with no prior knowledge of any XBox media, what impression would you get? Well, XBox is the name of the Console Line, One signifies first or most important, which is misleading as it is, but what about the X? X could mean Extraordinary or Extravagant if you really want to give them that much credit but the X by itself doesn't really give off much of an indication. If you watched the E3 Conference, you know it's the XBox's answer to the PS4 Pro but, without that knowledge, you'd probably be lost.
Nintendo does less well most of the time but is inconsistent about it. Initially, Nintendo was doing a pretty good job, they started with the NES, Nintendo Entertainment System, which is not great but it gets the idea across at least. Then, its sequel, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or Super Nintendo, or Super NES, or SNES. This is good because it gives you an idea that this is the sequel to a console you might have bought or at least heard of. Then, after that was the Virtual Boy, by far Nintendo's biggest failure for more reasons than this but, as far as branding goes, it is easily the worst of Nintendo's devices. The Virtual Boy is pretty much the only device Nintendo has ever made that does not feature the company name in the title, which means you not only don't know what series it's a part of but now you don't even have a clear idea of who made it, creating trust issues. Nintendo seems to have learned from this mistake, however, as immediately after they release the Nintendo 64, the Nintendo GameCube, the Nintendo Wii, and the Nintendo Switch. All of these devices don't seem to be part of any series but are clearly from a company that you've come to know and trust. Between the Wii and the Switch, there was the Wii U, which does not feature Nintendo's name consistently either but does contain the Wii in the title, suggesting it's the successor to the Wii. So all around Nintendo does fairly well but could be better.
However, the two that were the worst at this are also the ones that are no longer in the Console Race period. SEGA and the aforementioned Atari. SEGA never consistently had a series and was not consistent about company name. The SEGA Genesis, SEGA Saturn, and SEGA DreamCast all had SEGA's company name attached to it but I think that was more a result of fans looking into it than a move by SEGA themselves. We know this because every one of those consoles did far worse than any console released during or after it. The Genesis, which means beginning, decent start, was outsold by the NES, the Saturn, which no clue what that means, tried so hard to be pushed but ultimately got beaten by the SNES, N64, and the PlayStation, and the DreamCast, while definitely had a strong launch, didn't have enough to keep it going compared to any of the other consoles released during that generation, the GameCube, PS2, and XBox respectively.
Atari had largely the same problem with none of the names having any real brand to speak of and generally not doing all that well as a result.
So lesson one, when making a console, make sure you have a brand that's easy to market.
But marketing isn't everything. Ultimately, regardless of what device you're offering, no one's going to buy it if it doesn't have games you want to play. This one is something that Nintendo and Sony have fluctuated on but are mostly at the top for this. During the PS1 era, Sony had Final Fantasy VII, the very first Final Fantasy title that's not on a Nintendo device, Crash Bandicoot, who quickly became the mascot for the device, Spyro, Crash's only real rival on the device, Metal Gear Solid, the very first game period to feature fully voiced dialogue and cutscenes, Megaman Legends, another title that came to Sony after leaving Nintendo, Mortal Kombat 4, Tekken 1-3, and the special edition of Dead or Alive, and a fair few others.
Meanwhile, the Nintendo 64 had The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, two titles that, regardless of how you feel about them, are some of Nintendo's biggest and most successful titles in their most successful franchise, Super Smash Bros. a crossover brawler featuring several Nintendo mascots, Super Mario 64, the most seamless transition from 2D to 3D any franchise has ever had, Mario Cart, Mario Party, Donkey Kong 64, Banjo Kazooie, Banjo Tooie, and Conker's Bad Fur Day, Kirby 64, and Golden Eye 007.
All of these titles gave incentives to buy a Nintendo or Sony Console. However, of all the game franchises that SEGA ever had on their consoles, Sonic the Hedgehog is the only one that's still currently known. Virtua Fighter was around temporarily before being discontinued after a PS3 and XBox 360 port of the most recent title, and almost nothing else got more than one installment. The Yakuza series seems to be getting some traction recently but at those times it was a niche title for the most part.
To Atari's credit, they did create Pac-Man, probably the biggest icon in gaming history and one that anyone will recognize regardless of how old they are. However, Atari was notorious back in the day for having an oversaturation of poor quality titles, so much so that now they don't even have the rights to any except for their own original IP's like Pac-Man and Tempest. And even then, Pac-Man is the only one that anybody will really recognize. Sure, some people know about Tempest but not everyone knows about it or that it's an Atari IP.
Even moving past the 5th Generation, Sony and Nintendo still do the best of anyone. The Game Cube still had all of the same icons like Mario, Link, Samus, and Kirby but it featured a majority in games that were just high quality in general. Samus was in the Metroid Prime games, Link was in Wind Waker, Mario got many titles, but primarily Super Mario Sunshine, and Nintendo also featured a number of other titles that worked well with what they were trying to do.
Meanwhile, Sony had Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Ape Escape, and Ty the Tasmanian Tiger for Platformers, Devil May Cry 1-3, God of War 1 and 2, and Dynasty Warriors 2 forward for Action games, Dark Cloud 1 and 2 as the answer to The Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts 1, Re:Chain of Memories, 2, and Re:Coded for Action RPG's, Final Fantasy X, X-2, XI, and XII, and Dragon Quest VIII for JRPG's, and the list goes on. It even features some of the highest quality licensed titles known to gaming: sure there's the obvious DBZ: Budokai 3, which I've talked to death about, but there's also Yugioh: Capsule Monster Colliseum, Spider-Man 2, Ultimate Spider-Man, Naruto: Uzumaki Chronicles 2, and the Star Wars: Battlefront games.
Then we have the XBox, which featured Halo & Halo 2, which is so far Microsoft's only iconic series but it also features Ninja Gaiden, which is their answer to Devil May Cry 3, and was their exclusive title until Ninja Gaiden Sigma caused multi-platform to come to the series.
Then we get to the 7th Generation, and in this one Nintendo is doing the worst. Now, in all fairness, this generation does feature the Wii, which is Nintendo's best selling home console ever and the best selling of the three from that generation. However, this was not because of the icons or the games on it. Despite how great the console sold, all of the games that are widely considered to be the best on the console, Super Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2, Mad World, No More Heroes, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and so many others are also some of the console's most poorly selling titles in general.
Meanwhile, Sony didn't have as many great games but, speaking of exclusives, it did feature Uncharted, InFamous, Red Faction, God of War 3 and Ascension, and Tekken 6. Meanwhile, Microsoft is doing better than they did previously, as besides Halo 3 and Reach, they also now have Gears of War, Crackdown, and, for a while, Ninja Gaiden 2.
In the seventh generation, nobody was really doing all that well: Nintendo was doing the best since, while it didn't introduce any new gaming icons, it didn't abandon any either, so it had a stronger lineup. Meanwhile, Sony had Nathan Drake as a new icon but so many were abandoned from the jump to PS3 that you could say it wasn't worth it.
And Microsoft didn't abandon any gaming icons either and, in fact, introduced Gears of War as a new gaming icon. The problem is that, even with this combination, Microsoft didn't have a lineup that could stand up to Nintendo's.
However, exclusives and 1st party titles aren't all there is to it: 3rd party support is also a big factor, and this is where the Wii U failed. The Wii U had a number of 3rd party titles, the problem was that pretty much all of those 3rd party titles were on Consoles you likely already owned. Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge was on XBox 360 and PS3 at the same time as the Wii U, Darksiders 2 and Batman: Arkham City were also out on PS3 and XBox 360 before the Wii U was a thing, and the list is pretty extensively favoring this trend.
The Wii U did have some 1st party exclusives to push units but, apart from Smash Bros. 4, the only exclusive that would appeal to anyone on other devices is Bayonetta 2. Wonderful 101 would've appealed to more people if it was properly marketed, Super Mario 3D World pushed some Wii U's but was also the weakest selling Mario game in existence, Zombie U was interesting for its potential but didn't fully realize it, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze was far more niche than it should've been, Hyrule Warriors was the only Zelda game on the entire system, not counting remakes, which includes Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD, and there wasn't a Metroid game on the system period.
Now, to Nintendo's credit, the Switch seems to be doing far better than the Wii U as far as launch goes. Launching with Breath of the Wild was a great idea for two reasons: reason number 1 is because The Legend of Zelda is Nintendo's most popular series and the Wii U didn't get a proper Zelda game, making its return a lot more eventful. Reason 2, because even though it had a Wii U version, it's likely that a lot of people who wanted the game were going to buy a Switch specifically for it, which meant that people who never owned a Wii U don't have to worry about buying one to get it. They also announced Super Mario Odyssey, Metroid Prime 4, and a new 2D Metroid, which are titles that are going to push more sales than have already been pushed.
However, even the Switch doesn't seem to be a complete turn-around, as there are still a number of titles it has that are already on PS4 and XBox One. On top of that, something that PS4 and XBox One are doing so far better than Nintendo is supporting the Indie scene. 3 years into PS4's lifecycle and we already have Fez, Rogue Legacy, Yookah Laylee, Hyper Light Drifter, Salt & Sanctuary, Claire, Aragami, Mitsurugi Kamui Hikae, Child of Light, Transistor, and many more. It'll also be getting Lost Soul Aside next year, in terms of projections anyway, which is putting it far above what it could be with just AAA titles, 1st or 3rd party.
Microsoft hasn't done as well, with some indie titles and only a handful of exclusives, pretty much all of which are coming to PC, which is pushing people away from it more and more.
So, that's something else that a console needs: a strong lineup of games you want to play. Exclusives push hardware, but so do games that are just generally great to play.
But there's one last piece of the puzzle that everybody loves to bring up but nobody wishes to talk about to any significant degree: accessibility. Now, many of you will likely agree that accessibility is important for a device but, accessibility is not about how easy a game is or how difficult a controller is to use. Accessibility has two functions that need to be addressed that nobody ever talks about: game diversity and a player's ability to grasp a control scheme or controller.
Everybody looks at Nintendo and says that they push accessibility but they only do so from one angle, the controller angle. Now, the controller accessibility is most likely the reason the Wii was as successful as it was: moving a controller to make a character do what you're doing is a lot more intuitive than doing so with a button press. This is what makes the Wii accessible. The Wii U and the Switch are kind of like this as well, with motion controls and tablet functionality that most people can understand but there's a limit to how a good and intuitive controller can push a device. Ultimately, if there are no games on the device you want to play, how good the controller is is ultimately meaningless.
This is where we get into game diversity and the problem with the Wii U in terms of exclusives. Believe it or not, the Wii U did have a wide variety of different games in terms of encompassed genres. Even among exclusives, Smash 4, Super Mario 3D World, Wonderful 101, and Bayonetta 2 are all vastly different experiences. However, genre is not the only way a game can be unique from others. Difficulty and existing mechanics can as well. Smash 4 was great for people who had a Wii U but, ultimately most people would only play Smash 4 for the roster and would go back to Melee or some of the fan games if they want a competitive Smash game. Super Mario 3D World is a platformer, one of the most oversaturated genres of the time, and one that many games struggle to innovate on. Wonderful 101 was very different from anything else on the system except Pikmin 3 but was a generally niche title to start with. And Bayonetta 2, while nowhere near a bad game, did feature a bunch of changes from the first game that made it less fun at a competitive level.
Here's the thing: every game Nintendo puts exclusively on their device is intended to appeal to the widest demographic possible, which is the casual consumer. Bayonetta 2 is far more casual than Bayo 1, Wonderful 101 was not marketed at all seemingly for this reason, Smash 4 was a sort of hybrid of Melee and Brawl that lacked the advantages of either, and Super Mario 3D World didn't really do much of anything new that previous games hadn't done for the most part either.
If every game is intended for the casual consumer, this will do two things: first, it will scare off the hardcore players, who are the ones who'll play the game forever after its release when all is said and done, and second, its overall demographic will be limited by the genre's overall appeal to the casual consumer in the first place. Platformers can appeal to the casual consumer relatively easily. However, Brawlers, Character Action games, and Sentai Parodies are far more limited in that regard.
An accessible device doesn't just appeal to one demographic, it appeals to all demographics, something that many seem to state but nobody seems to go into detail on so I'll say it here. Every demographic that does not buy your device for a game you have is a demographic that will not help you. Yes, you do want to appeal to the casual consumer but your device should also have some games that'll appeal to hardcore audiences as well so they will get the device out of fear of missing out on something.
So, let's review my points and see how all this applies to the Atari Box:
- Proper Branding
- Easily Marketable Characters
- Strong lineup of games
- Accessibility
Now, for the Atari Box, we can't discuss the games or accessibility because it has no games on it yet to speak of but, as far as proper branding, it seems to be doing okay. Calling it the Atari Box is pretty straightforward of a name and, if you know what Atari does, you'll probably understand that it will have games. As for easily marketable characters, this is not as good. Apart from Pac-Man, Atari doesn't really have any characters that can be displayed and push units and even Pac-Man has a limit.
So I don't know what to expect from this device. It may be great and Atari's return to its former glory. All I'm saying is that it's been a long time and the company may have gotten rusty.
No comments:
Post a Comment