[Sound-off] Sony’s PS3 — This Decade’s Nintendo 64

A stripped-down PS3? No thanks.

I’m in the market for a Playstation 3 now that the prices are dropping, and I’ve sold off a lot of my old consoles (which I never use anymore anyhow) so I can buy one. More than once, I’ve been asked, “so, are you going to get the Slim?” (That is, for those who don’t know, the new, smaller, more energy-efficient model that Sony is replacing the old models with.)

But the thing is… the PS3 Slim is actually a lot LESS of a value than the earlier models. The original 60GB launch system (launched in 2006, at $600) had way more features than the current models do. It had four USB ports, a bunch of memory card readers, backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games and the ability to install Linux on the system without needing any modifications. Pretty cool, right? But as the system has evolved, it’s lost two USB ports, lost its backwards compatibility, lost its memory card readers, and finally, with the Slim, lost its ability to run Linux. All of this has been in the name of cost-cutting, but the truth of the matter is that Sony is actually reducing features in order to re-tighten their control on their hardware. They wanted the PS3 to be the “home computer system”. Now, they’re back to marketing it as a game console.

And honestly, it’s a really peculiar situation, because it shows that Sony really doesn’t get marketing at all. Instead of adding features to later models, as pretty much any electronics manufacturer would, Sony has continued to strip down and limit the PS3. They’ve even stopped pushing the Blu-Ray capabilities in favor of pushing the fact that it plays games slightly better than the Xbox 360. Sony has basically regressed to being a competitor in an old category rather than trying to hold on to the new territory it was delving into. I think they’re going to recover now that they’ve priced the PS3 appropriately and started developing their games library, but I think the PS3 is always going to be remembered as a mediocre console, not as the powerhouse it should be.

Oddly enough, Sony’s probably is not too different from Nintendo’s problem in the late 1990s. Nintendo was riding a huge wave of success from the SNES, which is, for my money, the best home console system ever made. Sega had been nipping at their heels with the Sega Genesis and the upcoming Saturn, and Sony was getting ready to launch its PlayStation, which came out of a failed partnership between Sony and Nintendo that was supposed to result in a CD-ROM attachment for the SNES. CD-ROM wasn’t quite ready for prime time (the discs loaded slowly, and analog sticks needed for 3D games were still not a standard feature on controllers), so Nintendo decided to launch another cartridge-based system, first named the “Ultra 64,” and then later, the “Nintendo 64.”

I remember the first year the Nintendo 64 came out — it was a disaster. There were only about 12 games available, and all of them were garbage except for Super Mario 64. The N64 didn’t come with all the extras (games, 2 controllers, zappers, etc) that the older consoles had; it was just a system and a single controller. And that controller — the weird, trident-shaped design that never quite felt comfortable in your hand, with an analog stick that was easy to break, and four tiny yellow buttons that served little practical purpose — was one of the first things that was clearly wrong with the N64. Nintendo, in its zeal to be different, had done something weird and awkward. And what’s more, it set the stage for something that continues to be true of Nintendo consoles — third party games tended to be terrible on the N64. If you ask people which N64 games they liked or remembered, they’re bound to cite a game made by Nintendo or by Rare (who at the time was a partner of Nintendo).

Apparently, the console was very hard to program for due to limited storage and memory. 3D objects were easy for the system to render, but there was little memory available for textures. Full-motion video and voice clips took up too much space, making the system a poor choice for RPGs. The control scheme was not really appropriate for fighting games, and the system did 2D really badly. Essentially, the N64 was a victim of its own ambition; it was trying to be a 3D game console before 3D game consoles were ready for prime time. I’d still rate it as Nintendo’s weakest console system, despite the fact that it sold much better than the Gamecube. But the Gamecube was superior in every way, and the reason it didn’t do as well was because people were soured by the N64 and Nintendo’s stubborn refusal to give them the sorts of experiences they could get on the PS2 and Xbox. Nintendo had developed a “kiddie” image – its products were little more than toys in the eyes of gamers. And commercials like this one didn’t help to shed that:

So, I made the statement that Sony’s PS3 is very similar to the N64. But on the surface, that doesn’t appear to be correct. Sony launched a console that was far more powerful (and capable!) than the N64, and it geared itself towards older gamers, not younger ones. Sony lacks the power of Nintendo for making first-party games, but it has some great third-party support. The controllers are comfortable and standard, and the system itself is pretty impressive, even in its stripped-down state. So how, you might wonder, can I draw a comparison?

It’s all in the marketing. Both Sony and Nintendo were riding the wave of two very successful consoles, and both decided that it was time to focus on the product, not the customer. Nintendo did it by launching a system that underperformed at traditional console functions and that didn’t do its new functions very well. Sony did it by launching a system that was intended to be used as something other than a console and then saying, nonchalantly, “oh, it plays games, too.” Both Nintendo and Sony supported their systems with ridiculous marketing strategies that tried to communicate technology over functionality, and both launched their consoles expecting people to buy on brand name alone.

The Nintendo 64 is actually remembered as a better system than it was because Nintendo was able to support it with some great games down the road. That helped to take the sting out somewhat to those who’d bought the system hoping for the same level of fun they’d enjoyed with the SNES. I’m actually not sure if Sony is going to be able to pull that off with the PS3; Sony’s never been good at first-party software, and most of its best first-party titles have been aimed at a specific niche. I’m guessing what takes the sting out of the PS3 is its ability to play Blu-Ray and its free online service… but I’m not sure that these features are as useful to the majority of gamers as Sony seems to think.

So, we’re left with a console cycle where Sony is going to take a bath. The early adopters have the system; the lower price point means that the early majority will start picking the system up. But they’re going to be disappointed when they realize they’ve got a system that’s not as good as the one they could have bought a few years back, and they’re going to find that the Xbox 360 actually has the better software library right now. The only way Sony is going to be able to turn this into a victory is if they can communicate the cool of the PS3 — and though Sony’s very good at being “cool,” I think they’ve given up too much ground this generation. If Microsoft’s third Xbox or Nintendo’s next console are in any way impressive, it’s likely that Sony’s going to really get hurt in the next cycle of consoles (which should begin in 2011 or 2012).

How did Nintendo come back? By re-inventing itself and focusing on The Marketing Concept with the Wii. They’ve been wildly successful because they figured out how to talk to gamers again and deliver what casual gamers wanted. Sony’s going to have to go through its own reinvention. I wish them luck.