Very interesting. You would think Sony, seeing their losses piling up left and right, would change their approach and put some control on how spending is handled in their divisions. This would explain why PS3, specifically, was such a money disaster for them. Basically, they let Ken Kutaragi go balls-to-the-wall without any concern or care for costs. The result? All of PS2's massive profits get wiped out. Looking back on it, was forcing Ken out of the division the real answer to their problem with PS3? I'm not so sure. Their whole corporate structure is what's hurting them it seems.
They didn't let him, he withheld information from them. He wanted to create the "Rolls-Royce" of consoles, and it ended up being a very powerful console with no value to a typical gaming consumer.
Nintendo is attacking from the other point of view, a console that they feel is "good enough" and a controller that while it holds the potential to be transformative, will end up being an overly complex controller unless they can entice 3rd party developers with games that are typically limited to the PC to make the jump based on what the controller offers.
This is the first time Nintendo has ever eased their third party development restrictions, which is a bold move on their part, and an admission that they do need third parties on board to have a successful product. They still need more games, more very compelling games, not just announcements but releases (honestly WTF is up with Pikmin?) to start to drive sales in the right direction. They won't be able to pull marketshare from Sony or Microsoft unless they get third party developers on board, with the games that western consumers flock to, to make games for the platform, with at least visual parity on those versions. They can't expect the controller to sell the console, games have to do that, and they have been showing that they are willing to make their system a better place for third parties, though some will still refrain at first because of poor sales on third party games since N64.
I want them to compete very badly, just as much as I would love Sony to compete, but I believe that Sony would have been better served by offering a little less on the spec sheet so they could make a profit on the console from the outset, I would have been sold if they hadn't been pushing their services so hard. I'm a gamer, I want to buy a machine that I will play games on, not circle jerk with internet acquaintances or let people tell me what to do. I really hope the price point it right, because I want a PS4 very badly as well, but if it is anywhere from 450+ I will have to take a pass until the price comes down. I want them to do well in the marketplace, but I question their strategy here simply because they don't have the money to lose.
Nintendo has the money to take a gamble this gen and reassess the next, something Sony had the opportunity to do between PS2-PS3. They bet wrong, and it cost them dearly. I'd have fired the entire hardware engineering team for what happened. I'm going to bet on Wii U this gen only because of my preferences and opinions, but I'd love to be compelled to buy a PS4 at launch, however unlikely.
EDIT: I'm sorry for some of the runon there, and the overuse of comma(commi?)
Edited by routerbad, 10 April 2013 - 12:38 PM.