My own two cents:
Nintendo:
I think the big mistake is obvious, they needed a more technically hefty platform. Towards the end of its life, the Wii just couldn't handle the HD graphics that gamers were expecting. But overall, the Wii was the most successful of the three platforms in my opinion. In terms of giving audiences a new gaming experience, it was by far the most innovative and successful. The pathetic attempts by Sony to launch it's own remote, and Microsoft's attempt to launch Kinect were really a testament to success of their competitor. On second look, maybe another problem was that Nintendo didn't promote independent developers as well as it could. The unique capabilities of the Wii were really begging for inventive developers to create special things. On the other hand, they did a good job of making the classics of older platforms available for download. In general, they succeeded in introducing their storied characters and franchises to a new generation. I honestly haven't had a chance to play the WiiU yetand don't know a whole lot about it. However I worry that if their deluxe version comes with only 32 gigs of memory, then they might be making the same shortsighted mistakes of hardware limitation that hampered previous generations.
Sony:
I think that from a technical standpoint, the PS3 was the superior to the 360 in every regard and this choice to go with heftier hardware was a wise decision. PS3 games almost always looked better than their 360 counterparts and PS3 exclusives looked fabulous. This meant that the breakout platformer of the generation (Uncharted) was a PS3 exclusive. A huge bonus. The choice to go with free online service was also a wise and generous nod to consumers and it will surely earn them loyalty in the next generation. With regard to mistakes, their notorious launch is well known, and while I can't back this up with evidence, I suspect that this slow start meant that Microsoft was always a step ahead in terms of getting audiences and attracting developers. This could be why the PS3 failed to make a Halo killer, a lost battle that will probably resume in the next generation.
Microsoft:
The great success of the 360 was to capitalize on it's existing champion (Halo), and ensure that it's launch was backed up with cutting edge titles like Gears of War and the newest generation of EA Sports titles. A cheaper launch price than the PS3 was also big boost, but the corresponding deficiency in hardware meant that the 360 aged faster and today it is somewhat disappointing how games require multi-gig installations to play at their full potential. Nonetheless, the promise of bigger markets meant that they had an edge in attracting developers over Sony. To this day, multi platform developers often design their games first and foremost for the 360 over the PS3. The biggest coup however were the Xbox Dashboard and Xbox Live Marketplace which was easy to use, shamelessly imitative of Nintendo, and offered loads of consumer options very early on. I really don't know why it ended up being more successful than the Playstation Network (the two seemed fairly equal to me), but it certainly was. Their overall marketing of their platform was superior and the slow death of Blue Ray is evidence of this. Of course their biggest mistake was the legendary hardware problems that accompanied their launch. If their next console has red rings of death than it will be very bad news for them indeed. In general, I think that they suffered gaining a reputation for inferior hardware compared to Sony.
But that's just the way I see it. I might be full of crap.
Log in to comment