Microsoft announced their Wii wanna-be (wanna-Wii?) in June of last year in the form of Project Natal, basically a hybrid of the Eye(toy) (remember how successful that was?) and motion-capture technology, using points on the human body as seen by Natal's camera as forms of input.
Sony, meanwhile, has announced their do-it-yourself Sailor Scout kit, much more obviously and shamelessly copying the Wii's design.
By the power of the moon, I am Sailor Awkward!
Unfortunately, they're both doomed to fail miserably and wind up at the bottom of the Al's Gone Crazy Discount Electronics and Furniture Shack's bargain bin before year's end. Why?
1. Sony and Microsoft can't compete with the Wii's price point
It's fair to say that, by now, all three consoles have cut their prices sufficiently that anyone who wants a PS3, Xbox 360, or Wii could afford one, despite certain MSRP difficulties upon launch for a certain console. But the simple fact is that, even if Sony and Microsoft packed their motion control peripherals in with their consoles from their respective release dates, that would still leave tens of millions of unsupported consoles across America, Europe, and in the XBox 360's case, almost four unsupported consoles in Japan.
That places the onus of purchasing Microsoft and Sony's motion-control peripherals squarely upon their customers, in addition to the cost of any motion-control games that would be released, which brings us to the next problem.
2. Anyone that wanted motion control as a primary feature of their console already bought a Wii
The Nintendo Wii was first to market. It has been around since 2006. The Wii MotionPlus adapter has been around since mid-2009. The Wii has a massive advantage in market penetration over the competition, not to mention a library of motion control games that dwarfs anything Microsoft or Sony will be able to muster within the lifespan of this console generation. Gamers are going to be very, very reluctant to buy a peripheral that won't enhance their current game library on the blind promise that developers will someday support it, which leads us to problem number...
The Nintendo Wii was first to market. It has been around since 2006. The Wii MotionPlus adapter has been around since mid-2009. The Wii has a massive advantage in market penetration over the competition, not to mention a library of motion control games that dwarfs anything Microsoft or Sony will be able to muster within the lifespan of this console generation. Gamers are going to be very, very reluctant to buy a peripheral that won't enhance their current game library on the blind promise that developers will someday support it, which leads us to problem number...
3. Developers won't support it
Even if the Wii had gambled on developers supporting motion controls and lost, Nintendo is still a gaming company. They are the only company with a console currently on the market that actually produces their own games for their platform. Nintendo could still squeak through on their own first-party titles which have historically (and recently) sold very well.
Even if the Wii had gambled on developers supporting motion controls and lost, Nintendo is still a gaming company. They are the only company with a console currently on the market that actually produces their own games for their platform. Nintendo could still squeak through on their own first-party titles which have historically (and recently) sold very well.
What's more, even if developers didn't want to support the Wii's motion controls, Nintendo still offered an out by allowing the Gamecube controller to be used as an input device and fail-safe against third-party timidity regarding developing for the then-nascent technology. But the fact of the matter is, a lot of companies do want to develop for the Wii because--get this--game companies are companies! Developing for the Wii gives them the largest potential consumer-base for any console of this generation.
"But!" you say, "why not develop for all three platforms?"
Ask any developer that has made cross-platform titles: it's a lot of extra work. And especially in the early going when the Microsoft and Sony peripherals need to build momentum with killer apps, that's when their market penetration is going to be at its weakest. Are game companies going to spend millions of dollars and add months to their design cycles to accommodate a platform that doesn't even have a large enough market share to put the endeavor in the black? Absolutely not. Because, above all else, the success of Microsoft's and Sony's foray into the world of motion control gaming still has one monolithic, insurmountable hurdle to overcome...
4. It's a peripheral
Quick, name one peripheral that has ever succeeded. And don't say the Rumble Pak--that was a pack-in that wasn't actually necessary, even for the games that supported it. And besides, thinking back, it was pretty stupid.
The answer is none. Not the 32X, not the Sega CD, not the Super Scope, not R.O.B., not the SNES Mouse, not even the then-revolutionary peripherals like X-Band, The Sega Channel, NES Power Pad, Multi-tap, or the Zapper. Why? Because the decision to design a game for a console operates on one major assumption: that people are going to buy it. Sure, everyone you're marketing to owns the console you're developing for, but the second a peripheral becomes a necessary component to gameplay, the target audience starts shrinking.
DDR and the current wave of rhythm games did a great job of getting people to buy their games and peripheral devices, but how many companies have developed for games with DDR pad support, or games that support Guitar Hero or Rock Band instruments? The designers of those games were content to send their product to market knowing that their target audience would buy their games and peripherals, but as the numbers in the game title ticked upward, fewer people bought them. Because if people didn't want to shell out for the expensive plastic guitar the first time, chances are they're not running to the store on account of Guitar Hero 5 being released. The creators of the Rock Band franchise painted themselves into a corner with required peripheral support and have been catering to a progressively smaller and smaller audience with each iteration. Same thing with DDR last generation.
Quick, name one peripheral that has ever succeeded. And don't say the Rumble Pak--that was a pack-in that wasn't actually necessary, even for the games that supported it. And besides, thinking back, it was pretty stupid.
The answer is none. Not the 32X, not the Sega CD, not the Super Scope, not R.O.B., not the SNES Mouse, not even the then-revolutionary peripherals like X-Band, The Sega Channel, NES Power Pad, Multi-tap, or the Zapper. Why? Because the decision to design a game for a console operates on one major assumption: that people are going to buy it. Sure, everyone you're marketing to owns the console you're developing for, but the second a peripheral becomes a necessary component to gameplay, the target audience starts shrinking.
DDR and the current wave of rhythm games did a great job of getting people to buy their games and peripheral devices, but how many companies have developed for games with DDR pad support, or games that support Guitar Hero or Rock Band instruments? The designers of those games were content to send their product to market knowing that their target audience would buy their games and peripherals, but as the numbers in the game title ticked upward, fewer people bought them. Because if people didn't want to shell out for the expensive plastic guitar the first time, chances are they're not running to the store on account of Guitar Hero 5 being released. The creators of the Rock Band franchise painted themselves into a corner with required peripheral support and have been catering to a progressively smaller and smaller audience with each iteration. Same thing with DDR last generation.
What can Microsoft and Sony do to avoid this fate?
Wait a generation, refine the technology (the Wii's motion controls are hardly as sharp and responsive as a many would like), and then do something new and awesome with it.
Like, imagine if you could give a game a 3D look and feel with creative use of existing technology so that a player's perspective were dynamically reflected in-game to give a truly immersive experience.
Oh, wait, that already exists (warning: may cause mind-blowing). It's called head-tracking. And why it hasn't appeared in some title in some form defies all logical explanation. Imagine a cover-based FPS like Gears of Halo with head-tracking. Game of the Year, right?
Hey, you there at Sony! Put down the pretty princess wand and get on that! Yes, the tiara, too!
No comments:
Post a Comment