What does Miyamoto's quote show me? It is similar to the GC in framework, and I am not sure why that is necessarily something I should care about. It certainly isn't a repackaged GC. Even if it's just a higher-clocked GC, it's not a GC.
When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.
Quote:
Cheat? In what way is it cheating?
It is cheating because a simple wrist flip is not any more engaging than pushing a joystick. The point of the controller is to mimic real sports behaviors for higher immersion.
Quote:
There's the nifty controller?
Which is easily replicated.
Quote:
Uh-oh, people, we have entered the land of car analogies!
I am not sure where to begin when someone starts comparing Xboxes and Playstations to Porsches and BMWs. There is no similarity here. What makes the 911 and the 7 series special is their brand image, for the most part. Anyone who gets hard over the name "Sony Playstation" or "Microsoft Xbox" isn't worth considering. The image of an Xbox or a Playstation is not worth anything, except to those whose approval no one seeks.
As for "performance", what performance, specifically? Teraflops?
BMW's and Porsches are performance vehicles and that is part of their image. This is why they don't make non-performance cars under their own brand.
For consoles the performance is the graphics capability as well as compute capability to support advanced physics models.
Don't play dumb to be an ass please.
Quote:
I never said the Wii was equivalent. I merely said it was not a repackaged GameCube (which is true) and that it is obviously not an attempt to be like the PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't know how that qualifies it from being "next-gen", you still haven't provided any kind of criteria for that.
Buy the very words "next" and "generation" it seems that the Wii is obviously "next-gen" because it came chronologically after the GC and has different/improved features.
Next-gen uber-console. It is technologically "basically a GC" so hardware wise "basically last generation".
Quote:
Yes, it is key, and what first-party makes better software than Nintendo?
Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.
If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.
Quote:
And if Nintendo is making profit and cannot adjust to better graphics (a baseless assertion on your part), they can do exactly what Microsoft did, buy your intellectual property and its developer (Bungie).
And Microsoft is hemmoraging money. Since this is not traditional Nintendo strategy it seems unlikely that they would pursue this. I also covered that in the original post.
Quote:
Did Nintendo not do any of the "hardware work" on their consoles?
Not to the same extend as Sony. Did Nintendo own its own fab and build some of its own components? No.
Quote:
You make grand statements about what these companies do and do not do, yet you provide no evidence.
There appears to be no point to provide you with any evidence since you simply disregard even the most un-ambigious statement from the best source.
Quote:
Again, confident statements about a reality you can know nothing at all about.
Nintendo has stated they are not interested in the hard core market and seek the casual market.
Apple has stated an interest in games and now is patenting potential mobile game technology for multi-touch. They certainly are not going for the hard core market at all.
You have completely failed to provide any evidence of your own for your absurd assertions.
Grove: the bulk of the cost in a game is development, and the second biggest is marketing. I would say that Halo 3 definitely required a lot more development dollars than Rockband did, and marketing seems about the same. In calculating the final profit, you have to factor in all these things.
If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).
The BMW provides a comfortable, stylish ride. The 7 series is not exactly barreling around tracks and setting records. The 911 is easily outmatched performance-wise by cheaper vehicles (like the Z06).
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.
Even further, a Corolla is a lot cheaper than the BMW/Porsche. The Wii is ~$250 and the PS3 80GB is ~$500. A $250 difference is minor. The $65,000 difference between a Corolla (~$15k) and a Porsche 911 (~%80k) is just a tad more substantial. The car analogy does not work, especially when as absurdly cast as you drew it. I could buy an Xbox 360 and a PS3 on my way home from work and my wife wouldn't even be angry at the expenditure, just the amount of space they would take up in the living room. Do not mention BMWs and Porsches.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.
The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!
Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?
Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?
When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.
He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.
Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that. You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.
If you don't like them, don't get a wii. Personally, I like all kinds of games, so I just get them all.
Quote:
Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.
If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.
Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds. I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...
Hello. I'm going to jump in here and explain why the Wii wins and the others do not and here is something fun, I'm not going to address nor do I even care about technical specs.
Hardware doesn't make dad swipe the bankcard when junior is begging, a host of other factors do.
So about me. I'm 37, I don't own any of these consoles but I am considering one. I have a friend who is my age and just purchased a Wii as his first console EVAR! Between us we have five kids aged respectively 5,6,6,8 and 15. (He had that free love isn't free thing going on when he was young.)
So anyway, suppose you are an adult, suppose you have kids, suppose those kids want you to occasionally play games with them so you don't feel like terrible parent what do you buy?
Are you going to buy, something with 14 buttons that you don't understand, or something with motion controllers, that real or not justified or not, factual or not make you believe you can attempt the game?
I mean the motion controller could completely stink. You expected to stink. At least now you stink with something you can understand as opposed to something you don't.
So justified or not, good hardware or not, the motion controllers get parent buy in which means you buy a Wii.
Now, the kids have brought in the videogame system. We plugged it into the wonderful, large screen, HD television in my friend's living room. My TV is large screen but still SD. Either way we plug it in and the graphics look....good enough. The parents swiped the card and they don't have a true comparison most of the time. My friend is a PC gamer so in his view all consoles look worse. He doesn't care if it is 20% worse versus 30-40% worse. It is still worse so no matter what he buys he has to tolerate sub par. So you either care and tolerate or are clueless and don't care. Neither of those points matter because here is the crux of the whole issue, when we are done swinging at baseballs, making Mario chase stars or kicking super striker goals, your butt is going to to drag that console back upstairs, get it the hell away from MY television so I can watch the Lakers hopefully in HD.
So the real point is that even if the households have X% of HD television penetration, parents do not want arguments with kids about who controls the television. IF there is a second television in the family room, kid's room, whatever, it had better be able to play well on that set. It might even mean I intentionally buy something NOT HD just so we don't have another point for the kids to toss into the argument over MY TV.
Remember, adults swipe those cards. Do I want junior complaining he can't play his console because it isn't on an HD television, or do I get something that works on all televisions?
Wait.. I know what you are saying that Xbox360 and PS3 work on SDTV's as well. However the parents who are fronting this cash would rather not argue and be safe rather than sorry. No HD, no kids swearing they have to monopolize the largest and most expensive television in the house.
Finally there is cost. In the real world cost is a serious concern and that means cheap for the win. There are no gotchas to the Wii and a fair amount of value, real or imagined, that can get folks to commit. There is only one system to consider and it doesn't leave off compatibility or storage to entice a larger buy. The console is $250 and comes with one game. You buy a second game called Wii Play for $50, the cost of the controller and you get the game for free. These things matter when calculating value.
In fact people seldom purchase what is best. To argue that something is the greatest or best often means it won't make a dime and the commitment to it in terms of cost is too large to overcome.
So from the view of value Wii totally wins even if it is inferior to several other choices in every possible way, because it provides the best value. It works equally well on all sets. It is the cheapest. You get the system, two games and two controllers for $300. More fun, fewer arguments and I can still afford my DVR on the main TV after buying it.
Is the Wii technologically inferior to the other two consoles? It depends upon what you mean by inferior. Are the graphics worse? Undoubtedly. Might they even suck in comparison to the XBox360 and PS3? Sure!
But being behind technologically in performance can also mean being ahead when it comes to space, power needs and dependability. Let's say everyone here talking about technology is completely correct and the Wii is nothing more than an overclocked gamecube. Umm.... who cares. My kids can drag that overclocked gamecube away from my television and back to their own because it is only the size of a few DVD cases. They can take the Wii into the travel trailer on camping trips. They might be able to even plug it into the inverter in the car on long driving trips.
Big, bulky, lots of heat, fans and power draw are all losers here. Portable wins. I cannot tell you what resolution the GBA SP runs, how many megahertz it has or how many colors it can show. I CAN tell you that it lasts around 14-15 hours before needing a charge though and that means it rules in my book. It WINS!
Parents talk and when the wife hears about so and so's mom having to stop at the UPS store to drop off the broken XBox360 AGAIN due to reliability issues, it gets passed around in the mom gossip. If I buy a console will the network effect make me more likely to consider a Wii so my kids can bring over their controllers and games to play with the other family? Sure. I'm not even sure how it works but a couple of the nephews don't even have a Wii. They just bought the controller that I guess stores their information in it some how?
Either way most things do not win by having the best technology or graphics. I have no doubt that we will probably have to get a Wii someday. It is cheap enough to get me to buy in. Other people have stuff to use and share. It can go anywhere and I can give it a shot if I care to and then send them away without complaint when I don't.
I bet all those non-technological variables weigh in much more.
If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).
No, the point is that for upscale vehicles in that category, performance is a given even if the drivers never really expect to use it and dono't have the skill. There are other brands more luxurious and both of those companies stress "driver experience".
If you don't have performance then you aren't competing in that segment. It's a requirement along with leather seats.
Quote:
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.
Fine, they aren't luxury items but that doesn't invalidate the analogy that market segments often have defining characteristics that if you don't have, you simply can't compete in.
Performance is an easy analogy since for uber-consoles the "performance" aspect is graphics capability. You don't have it, you don't compete in that segment. Lack of eye-candy will kill you with the target demographic.
Quote:
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.
Wii is something a lot different. Just because its a console doesn't mean its in the same category selling to the same demographic.
Quote:
The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!
Again, relative sales don't matter if they aren't direct competitors or shooting for the same demographic. How hard is this to understand?
Nintendo can be fantastically successful as a game company. The point is that it does not compete in the uber-console market. You can claim it is by choice but it is also possible that it is not by choice but an inability to execute in making a competitive uber-console.
That they changed to a market segement that they can dominate is a wonderful strategy and will be very successful.
But the point is that in the last generation they failed execution, ended up in third and this generation didn't bother to play. There is no indication that even if they CHOOSE to compete next time that they would be successful in execution.
Will they be wildly successful in not competing? Sure.
If you wish a computer analogy vs cars, this is the same kind of thing with Apple. Wonderful company, excellent strategy, big moneymaker, relatively low share.
Apple does not compete in the commodity PC market against HP and Dell. You can say this is a choice but in my opinion the Apple corporate culture really precludes very good execution in a commodity market. Try to enact a commodity strategy with the current staff and executive team and you're likely in for very poor execution.
When Jobs came back to Apple, he decided that Apple was ineffective in pursuit of market share and went back to a strategy of pursuit of profits (and excellence). No more clones, drastic reduction on models, and higher ASPs.
Was it by choice? Surely.
Could he have made the choice to stay the course? Surely. But it would have sucked.
If Nintendo had gone head to head with MS and Sony it likely would have lost. Again. So it didn't.
But that certainly doesn't imply very great things about Nintendo's console hardware abilities.
Quote:
Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?
What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?
Mario, Link and Pokemon are great franchises. But new franchises are also possible.
Quote:
Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?
Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.
What threat does Apple bring? Innovation just like Nintendo does. The iPod Touch will be far more a threat than the PSP if Apple started to think games because they tend to think a bit more outside the box product-wise than Sony has shown in the past.
Last year, I got all 3 of them, Xbox 360 (April), Wii (Nov), and PS3 (Dec). Today, I have only the Wii and PS3.
Honestly, I haven't turned on the Wii for almost 2 months. Nintendo needs to come up with something more fun. I'm waiting for the Wii fit tho. On the PS3 side, I love it. Now, I'm thinking of getting a PSP Slim.
What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?
Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies. The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?
You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.
Quote:
What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?
Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?
You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.
Quote:
Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.
They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.
Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.
He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.
No, he's referring to hardware architecture and general design. Sure its updated and faster with slightly better graphics but essentially its the same thing update to 2007 specs with whatever commodity parts best fit today.
Quote:
Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that.
Who says I have a bug up my ass about the Wii? Someone asked for opinions, I provided mine. Did I ever say I didn't like the Wii? No.
Quote:
You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.
The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.
No one disagrees that Nintendo has fun games.
Quote:
Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds.
No I mean I wouldn't let my 2-12 year olds play Halo or COD. Arguably they should even be more mature than 13 even for some Teen rated titles.
Quote:
I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...
Killing people is a mature topic. Halo 3 has a ESRB Mature rating. COD4 has a ESRB Mature rating (except on the NDS).
Pokemon and Mario are ESRB Everyone. Zelda can be ESRB Everyone or Teen. Go to the ESRB site and most Nintendo games are E with a few Ts. Sony is T's with some Es and a few Ms.
So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.
What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?
Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?
So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?
Quote:
Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies.
It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.
Quote:
The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?
They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.
But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.
It is not capable of being the only console for a gamer.
Quote:
You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.
I don't need to show the obvious that every game mag, newspaper, etc has already stated. What is absurd is insinuating that Nintendo has not publically stated their objective is to reach a different audience and that analysts have pretty much agreed that they have been successful.
Quote:
Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?
Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.
Quote:
You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.
I cannot help your poor reading comprehension where you add a "3" to where it does not exist. When the original Playstation was launched Nintendo was certainly in the same market. 2 generations later they have conceeded that market to Sony and Microsoft and are no longer in the same market.
Quote:
They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.
And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market. Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.
The GC was a failure because it took 3rd. Given the costs of developing a next generation console and the amount of money Microsoft was willing to sink into buying market share it dropped out. Unlike Sega they didn't exit the hardware business but instead found a different niche.
They went from #1 market share in 3rd & 4th generation (NES, SNES) to #2 in the 5th generation (N64) to #3 in the 6th generation (GC).
They've taken #1 again 20 years later but in a different market segment.
Quote:
Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.
In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either. Nor did Apple have any valuable experience in phones until recently.
It is unlikely that Jobs will make a hard push into games but if Apple did wish to enter the game market (likely handhelds first) it would be far more of a threat than Sony today. Especially in the handheld market. Apple is unlikely to go the console route.
I think it's clear that we have one or more Wii fanboys, and the rest are, at the worst, realists. I don't think that anyone here is a Wii hater, but we do all realize that the Wii is short lived. Maybe Nintendo will pull an ace out of its sleeve, but doing so will be far more difficult in 2008 than it was in 2006.
You start a thread about the soon-to-come death of the Wii using extremely weak logic (Rock Band's peripherals) and you want to pretend this is about Wii fanboys versus "realists"?
The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop. There's no evidence that people will be happy to buy Wii-type controllers for their PS3 or Xbox 360 or that any developers will start making Wii-type games for the PS3 and Xbox 360. You just tried to string together a bunch of moonbat possibilities and demanded they be treated as obvious future happenings.
vinea:
Quote:
The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.
This is the most ridiculous argument of all. "Chops"? What "chops" does one need to build an uber-console?
Quote:
Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?
I asked a question, answer it.
Let me try again: Is that (uber-console) market a profitable one to be in right now?
Answer it. Don't just reply with another question. You want to play this "uber-console market" as if it is a separate market, show me some numbers.
Quote:
So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?
Nintendo is outselling. I'm not worried about their ability to compete.
If July demonstrated that Sony could improve sales of the PlayStation 3 by 66% by reducing its price by $100, then August revealed that Microsoft can achieve nearly the same with $20 - $50 price-reduction. However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.
Maybe there's something about this you just don't understand.
(Also, compared PS2 sales to PS3 sales. They can't even beat their own last-gen.)
Also:
Meanwhile, the market of portable game consoles shrank again by nearly 18% in August to approximately 583.4 thousand of units across the board. Nintendo sustains its leadership in the field with 383.3 thousand of Nintendo DS sold through and 69.5 thousand of Game Boy Advance bought by gamers in the USA. Sales of Sony PlayStation Portable dropped tangibly to 130.6 thousand of devices.
Show me some numbers with regards to these separate markets.
Quote:
It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.
There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the PS3 and Xbox 360. These are games typically rated "E" and rely on accessibility and ease-of-use.
("HAY GUYZ I CAN MAKE BLANKET STATEMENTS TOO!")
Quote:
They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.
Where are your numbers?
Let me quote the source again: However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.
I have numbers and sources. You have nothing.
Quote:
But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.
Do "hardcore gamers" not want to play Zelda and Mario and Super Smash Brothers, as well?
Not too be presumptuous, but the answer is that they do, in fact, want to play these games.
Quote:
Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.
Nintendo still makes an assload of money, the games industry just grew (do you want numbers on this, too?).
Quote:
And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market.
All competitors in technology markets "buy" into them. Sony and MS invested an insane amount of money in their consoles.
Quote:
Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.
So we see some game-related patents and an iPhone and we're supposed to think that handheld gaming is soon to be Apple's?
Let's see some games.
Quote:
In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either.
True enough, but they made a real investment. What has Apple done?
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
I think that both can and will survive. Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)
It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)
I agree but Sony or MS could give users two sets of controllers with the purchase of a system. The real challenge as you mention is making them as functional as Nintendo has with the Wii.
And the fact that every single PS3 and Xbox 360 owner already has the current default controller. Once the system is released it's too late. If they want to change the way the games are interacted with, they need to look ahead to the PS4 and the Xbox 720.
And just another key thing to notice from the actual statistics I have provided. The two best-selling consoles from December 2006 to today are the Wii and the PS2. (The worst-selling, by far, being the PS3.)
The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.
Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.
Quote:
Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
Unless you define "hardcore gamer" as "someone who doesn't have a Wii", what evidence do you have to argue that these are distinct market segments?
So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.
Your argument before wasn't ESRB ratings, it was that Nintendo's market is "skewed to the kid demographics" compared to the xbox and ps3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games. If you like more mature games then no...
backtomac has made a similar statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.
It was touched on earlier, but if you actually go online and play these "mature" games, you will find it infested with people who are years away from being legally able to hold a job.
This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.
That's not what is meant by mature here. The closer to nappies you are in either direction, the less 'mature' you tend to be. It's meant in the same way the word 'adult' is used. Why wouldn't an OAP go to see an 'adult' movie? They are adults after all.
They can of course do so but they tend to be less inclined as with children.
The thing about Nintendo even when I was at school is that they were meant for children and as soon as the playstation 1 emerged, this became immediately apparent and I never looked back. I went SNES > PSone > PS2 > PSP. Having known what titles appear for a 'mature' console, I've never had a desire to become part of the childish Nintendo market again and it hasn't changed in the past 15 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop.
Didn't the PS3 outsell the Wii in Japan very recently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.
Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.
Add all the Wii, Gameboy, Gamecube etc customers together - this is one market.
Now add, Xbox, xbox360, PSP, PS2, PS3 customers - this is the 'mature' market.
When you talk about sales numbers you need to consider the fact that Nintendo are not really competing on the same level with anyone else.
A hardcore gamer is defined by the games and usually the level of difficulty. Inexperienced gamers may at times play similar games to hardcore gamers but not in the same way (they tend to run and button bash) and Nintendo's games clearly reflect this with more simplistic controls. It takes a certain degree of experience to be able to take full advantage of a next-gen game and if you are the type of person who picks up a controller and gets killed within 5 minutes playing Call of Duty then you are not a hardcore gamer. The same goes if you just run through the street shooting roughly in the direction of what looks like an enemy.
I think it's clear that we have one or more Wii fanboys, and the rest are, at the worst, realists. I don't think that anyone here is a Wii hater, but we do all realize that the Wii is short lived. Maybe Nintendo will pull an ace out of its sleeve, but doing so will be far more difficult in 2008 than it was in 2006.
You do realize that you are taking the information, ratings and current rankings and drawing all the exact opposite conclusions with them that reality would dictate. Can you explain why a system claimed to appeal to everyone would sell to no one and why systems tailored to a narrow niche would sell blockbuster amounts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I agree but Sony or MS could give users two sets of controllers with the purchase of a system. The real challenge as you mention is making them as functional as Nintendo has with the Wii.
The real challenge is not going broke. Both Microsoft and Sony are losing big money and both have already undertaken moves that alter their previous strategy in hopes of either hitting price points without losing more money or increasing sales while only losing what they had before. I don't follow this from a gamer perspective but from a financial one. Microsoft had to write off profits to pay for the extended and unreliable XBox360's. Sony had the creator of the Playstation "retire" and move in new management if I recall correctly. Meanwhile Nintendo stock is up almost 300%.
If they started tossing in motion controllers, their profits would go even lower. Nintendo's strategy would be even more validated and the markets, profits, and development would all jump accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Good debate and interesting points on both sides.
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
I think that both can and will survive. Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
I don't think the market has split. I think a very loud and narrow interest group has declared they deserve the attention and development and now when it is time for the dollars to arrive, there aren't enough to go around. Between Battlefield, COD, Unreal, Quake Engine games, Valve, and Medal of Honor (just to name a few) exactly how many people do I need to kill with a gun? It is oversupply and lack of demand. Great graphics cannot overcome that.
Comments
What does Miyamoto's quote show me? It is similar to the GC in framework, and I am not sure why that is necessarily something I should care about. It certainly isn't a repackaged GC. Even if it's just a higher-clocked GC, it's not a GC.
When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.
Cheat? In what way is it cheating?
It is cheating because a simple wrist flip is not any more engaging than pushing a joystick. The point of the controller is to mimic real sports behaviors for higher immersion.
There's the nifty controller?
Which is easily replicated.
Uh-oh, people, we have entered the land of car analogies!
I am not sure where to begin when someone starts comparing Xboxes and Playstations to Porsches and BMWs. There is no similarity here. What makes the 911 and the 7 series special is their brand image, for the most part. Anyone who gets hard over the name "Sony Playstation" or "Microsoft Xbox" isn't worth considering. The image of an Xbox or a Playstation is not worth anything, except to those whose approval no one seeks.
As for "performance", what performance, specifically? Teraflops?
BMW's and Porsches are performance vehicles and that is part of their image. This is why they don't make non-performance cars under their own brand.
For consoles the performance is the graphics capability as well as compute capability to support advanced physics models.
Don't play dumb to be an ass please.
I never said the Wii was equivalent. I merely said it was not a repackaged GameCube (which is true) and that it is obviously not an attempt to be like the PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't know how that qualifies it from being "next-gen", you still haven't provided any kind of criteria for that.
Buy the very words "next" and "generation" it seems that the Wii is obviously "next-gen" because it came chronologically after the GC and has different/improved features.
Next-gen uber-console. It is technologically "basically a GC" so hardware wise "basically last generation".
Yes, it is key, and what first-party makes better software than Nintendo?
Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.
If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.
And if Nintendo is making profit and cannot adjust to better graphics (a baseless assertion on your part), they can do exactly what Microsoft did, buy your intellectual property and its developer (Bungie).
And Microsoft is hemmoraging money. Since this is not traditional Nintendo strategy it seems unlikely that they would pursue this. I also covered that in the original post.
Did Nintendo not do any of the "hardware work" on their consoles?
Not to the same extend as Sony. Did Nintendo own its own fab and build some of its own components? No.
You make grand statements about what these companies do and do not do, yet you provide no evidence.
There appears to be no point to provide you with any evidence since you simply disregard even the most un-ambigious statement from the best source.
Again, confident statements about a reality you can know nothing at all about.
Nintendo has stated they are not interested in the hard core market and seek the casual market.
Apple has stated an interest in games and now is patenting potential mobile game technology for multi-touch. They certainly are not going for the hard core market at all.
You have completely failed to provide any evidence of your own for your absurd assertions.
If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).
The BMW provides a comfortable, stylish ride. The 7 series is not exactly barreling around tracks and setting records. The 911 is easily outmatched performance-wise by cheaper vehicles (like the Z06).
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.
Even further, a Corolla is a lot cheaper than the BMW/Porsche. The Wii is ~$250 and the PS3 80GB is ~$500. A $250 difference is minor. The $65,000 difference between a Corolla (~$15k) and a Porsche 911 (~%80k) is just a tad more substantial. The car analogy does not work, especially when as absurdly cast as you drew it. I could buy an Xbox 360 and a PS3 on my way home from work and my wife wouldn't even be angry at the expenditure, just the amount of space they would take up in the living room. Do not mention BMWs and Porsches.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.
The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!
Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?
Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?
When you can't even accept that the statement "the hardware is basically a GC" to mean that...well the hardware is basically a GC then no amount of further evidence that you claim to want will change your opinion in the slightest.
He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.
Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that. You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.
If you don't like them, don't get a wii. Personally, I like all kinds of games, so I just get them all.
Depends on the games you like doesn't it? If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games.
If you like more mature games then no, Nintendo is not the best software maker.
Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds. I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...
Hardware doesn't make dad swipe the bankcard when junior is begging, a host of other factors do.
So about me. I'm 37, I don't own any of these consoles but I am considering one. I have a friend who is my age and just purchased a Wii as his first console EVAR! Between us we have five kids aged respectively 5,6,6,8 and 15. (He had that free love isn't free thing going on when he was young.)
So anyway, suppose you are an adult, suppose you have kids, suppose those kids want you to occasionally play games with them so you don't feel like terrible parent what do you buy?
Are you going to buy, something with 14 buttons that you don't understand, or something with motion controllers, that real or not justified or not, factual or not make you believe you can attempt the game?
I mean the motion controller could completely stink. You expected to stink. At least now you stink with something you can understand as opposed to something you don't.
So justified or not, good hardware or not, the motion controllers get parent buy in which means you buy a Wii.
Now, the kids have brought in the videogame system. We plugged it into the wonderful, large screen, HD television in my friend's living room. My TV is large screen but still SD. Either way we plug it in and the graphics look....good enough. The parents swiped the card and they don't have a true comparison most of the time. My friend is a PC gamer so in his view all consoles look worse. He doesn't care if it is 20% worse versus 30-40% worse. It is still worse so no matter what he buys he has to tolerate sub par. So you either care and tolerate or are clueless and don't care. Neither of those points matter because here is the crux of the whole issue, when we are done swinging at baseballs, making Mario chase stars or kicking super striker goals, your butt is going to to drag that console back upstairs, get it the hell away from MY television so I can watch the Lakers hopefully in HD.
So the real point is that even if the households have X% of HD television penetration, parents do not want arguments with kids about who controls the television. IF there is a second television in the family room, kid's room, whatever, it had better be able to play well on that set. It might even mean I intentionally buy something NOT HD just so we don't have another point for the kids to toss into the argument over MY TV.
Remember, adults swipe those cards. Do I want junior complaining he can't play his console because it isn't on an HD television, or do I get something that works on all televisions?
Wait.. I know what you are saying that Xbox360 and PS3 work on SDTV's as well. However the parents who are fronting this cash would rather not argue and be safe rather than sorry. No HD, no kids swearing they have to monopolize the largest and most expensive television in the house.
Finally there is cost. In the real world cost is a serious concern and that means cheap for the win. There are no gotchas to the Wii and a fair amount of value, real or imagined, that can get folks to commit. There is only one system to consider and it doesn't leave off compatibility or storage to entice a larger buy. The console is $250 and comes with one game. You buy a second game called Wii Play for $50, the cost of the controller and you get the game for free. These things matter when calculating value.
In fact people seldom purchase what is best. To argue that something is the greatest or best often means it won't make a dime and the commitment to it in terms of cost is too large to overcome.
So from the view of value Wii totally wins even if it is inferior to several other choices in every possible way, because it provides the best value. It works equally well on all sets. It is the cheapest. You get the system, two games and two controllers for $300. More fun, fewer arguments and I can still afford my DVR on the main TV after buying it.
Is the Wii technologically inferior to the other two consoles? It depends upon what you mean by inferior. Are the graphics worse? Undoubtedly. Might they even suck in comparison to the XBox360 and PS3? Sure!
But being behind technologically in performance can also mean being ahead when it comes to space, power needs and dependability. Let's say everyone here talking about technology is completely correct and the Wii is nothing more than an overclocked gamecube. Umm.... who cares. My kids can drag that overclocked gamecube away from my television and back to their own because it is only the size of a few DVD cases. They can take the Wii into the travel trailer on camping trips. They might be able to even plug it into the inverter in the car on long driving trips.
Big, bulky, lots of heat, fans and power draw are all losers here. Portable wins. I cannot tell you what resolution the GBA SP runs, how many megahertz it has or how many colors it can show. I CAN tell you that it lasts around 14-15 hours before needing a charge though and that means it rules in my book. It WINS!
Parents talk and when the wife hears about so and so's mom having to stop at the UPS store to drop off the broken XBox360 AGAIN due to reliability issues, it gets passed around in the mom gossip. If I buy a console will the network effect make me more likely to consider a Wii so my kids can bring over their controllers and games to play with the other family? Sure. I'm not even sure how it works but a couple of the nephews don't even have a Wii. They just bought the controller that I guess stores their information in it some how?
Either way most things do not win by having the best technology or graphics. I have no doubt that we will probably have to get a Wii someday. It is cheap enough to get me to buy in. Other people have stuff to use and share. It can go anywhere and I can give it a shot if I care to and then send them away without complaint when I don't.
I bet all those non-technological variables weigh in much more.
Nick
vinea:
If it was just about performance then BMW and Porsche customers would do far better spending far less money. But it's not just about performance. The BMW and the Porsche are about image first and foremost (also, do you really contend that all BMW vehicles are "performance" vehicles?).
No, the point is that for upscale vehicles in that category, performance is a given even if the drivers never really expect to use it and dono't have the skill. There are other brands more luxurious and both of those companies stress "driver experience".
If you don't have performance then you aren't competing in that segment. It's a requirement along with leather seats.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not like BMWs and Porsches because there is no image to them. They are game consoles. Anyone showing outward allegiance above the age of 12 to a games console, as a BMW/Porsche driver might, would rightly be ridiculed.
Fine, they aren't luxury items but that doesn't invalidate the analogy that market segments often have defining characteristics that if you don't have, you simply can't compete in.
Performance is an easy analogy since for uber-consoles the "performance" aspect is graphics capability. You don't have it, you don't compete in that segment. Lack of eye-candy will kill you with the target demographic.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 are direct competitors.
The Wii is something that's a little different.
Wii is something a lot different. Just because its a console doesn't mean its in the same category selling to the same demographic.
The Wii is outselling the Xbox 360 and the PS3, it has been since it was released and there's no real indication that is going to change. I truly fail to see how Nintendo is losing anything here except mindspace among people who aren't their customers in the first place. WHAT THE HELL MICROSOFT DOESN'T HAVE ZELDA THEY ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!
Again, relative sales don't matter if they aren't direct competitors or shooting for the same demographic. How hard is this to understand?
Nintendo can be fantastically successful as a game company. The point is that it does not compete in the uber-console market. You can claim it is by choice but it is also possible that it is not by choice but an inability to execute in making a competitive uber-console.
That they changed to a market segement that they can dominate is a wonderful strategy and will be very successful.
But the point is that in the last generation they failed execution, ended up in third and this generation didn't bother to play. There is no indication that even if they CHOOSE to compete next time that they would be successful in execution.
Will they be wildly successful in not competing? Sure.
If you wish a computer analogy vs cars, this is the same kind of thing with Apple. Wonderful company, excellent strategy, big moneymaker, relatively low share.
Apple does not compete in the commodity PC market against HP and Dell. You can say this is a choice but in my opinion the Apple corporate culture really precludes very good execution in a commodity market. Try to enact a commodity strategy with the current staff and executive team and you're likely in for very poor execution.
When Jobs came back to Apple, he decided that Apple was ineffective in pursuit of market share and went back to a strategy of pursuit of profits (and excellence). No more clones, drastic reduction on models, and higher ASPs.
Was it by choice? Surely.
Could he have made the choice to stay the course? Surely. But it would have sucked.
If Nintendo had gone head to head with MS and Sony it likely would have lost. Again. So it didn't.
But that certainly doesn't imply very great things about Nintendo's console hardware abilities.
Nintendo dominates the casual games market and Apple is absolutely no threat to that. As long as Nintendo controls Mario and Link and Pokemon and so many other intellectual properties what is the threat Apple brings?
What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?
Mario, Link and Pokemon are great franchises. But new franchises are also possible.
Am I supposed to think that Apple will just, by its very nature, dominate whatever space it enters? I guess that's why we're all playing Dogcow: Extreme on the Pippin 6.0, right?
Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.
What threat does Apple bring? Innovation just like Nintendo does. The iPod Touch will be far more a threat than the PSP if Apple started to think games because they tend to think a bit more outside the box product-wise than Sony has shown in the past.
Honestly, I haven't turned on the Wii for almost 2 months. Nintendo needs to come up with something more fun. I'm waiting for the Wii fit tho. On the PS3 side, I love it. Now, I'm thinking of getting a PSP Slim.
What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?
Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies. The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?
You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.
What threat did the Playstation pose to Nintendo? What threat does the iPhone pose to Nokia? What threat does any new entrant pose to an incumbant?
Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?
You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.
Yes, because the Newton sucked Apple will never be successful in that market. Ever.
They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.
Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.
He's not specifically referring to performance in that quote, it's in the context of game compatibility, and performance is likely about 1.5-2x the gamecube. It's irrelevant, though, really.
No, he's referring to hardware architecture and general design. Sure its updated and faster with slightly better graphics but essentially its the same thing update to 2007 specs with whatever commodity parts best fit today.
Honestly, it's pretty strange you have such a bug up your ass about wii. It's a great, fun system that features fantastic games and gameplay that you can't get on the other systems, and lots of people recognize that.
Who says I have a bug up my ass about the Wii? Someone asked for opinions, I provided mine. Did I ever say I didn't like the Wii? No.
You don't get the wii to play COD3, you get it to play Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Metroid, Zelda, etc. And, frankly, they are a ton of fun.
The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.
No one disagrees that Nintendo has fun games.
Eh, huh? And as someone who plays Halo or COD just about every night, I can't image how any sane person would describe the environment as "mature." Oh, you must mean superficially, like how graphics help you momentarily forget that a quarter of the people your are running around killing are 8-14 year olds.
No I mean I wouldn't let my 2-12 year olds play Halo or COD. Arguably they should even be more mature than 13 even for some Teen rated titles.
I can honestly say that it's been probably a decade since I last even witnessed IRL the severe level of immaturity I've encountered on xbox live. I'm not complaining (I love xbox live), it just is what it is, and mature it is not. And with manhunt on the wii...
Killing people is a mature topic. Halo 3 has a ESRB Mature rating. COD4 has a ESRB Mature rating (except on the NDS).
Pokemon and Mario are ESRB Everyone. Zelda can be ESRB Everyone or Teen. Go to the ESRB site and most Nintendo games are E with a few Ts. Sony is T's with some Es and a few Ms.
So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.
vinea:
What market is it that Nintendo "can't" compete in? The "uber-console" market? Is that a profitable market to be in right now?
Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?
So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?
Your "uber-console market" and "casual console market" are false dichotomies.
It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.
The Wii is selling like crazy, and not just to people who were never in the market for consoles before. If the Wii is not working in the same market as Sony and Microsoft, then how the hell do you explain the massive sales advantage the Wii has? Do you really think that Nintendo opened a big new market?
They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.
But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.
It is not capable of being the only console for a gamer.
You are going to have to show that the Wii is selling to people who do not normally buy consoles to prove this absurd idea that the Wii is only successful because non-gamers are buying it.
I don't need to show the obvious that every game mag, newspaper, etc has already stated. What is absurd is insinuating that Nintendo has not publically stated their objective is to reach a different audience and that analysts have pretty much agreed that they have been successful.
Is Nintendo any less profitable now than before the PlayStation?
Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.
You just argued that they were in different markets and now you are saying that they are in the same? Pick an argument.
I cannot help your poor reading comprehension where you add a "3" to where it does not exist. When the original Playstation was launched Nintendo was certainly in the same market. 2 generations later they have conceeded that market to Sony and Microsoft and are no longer in the same market.
They might be, but their past failure shows us something. Hell, you made the same point yourself with the GC, but the GC wasn't even a failure, it turned great profits for a long time and moved a lot of units. Talking out of both sides of your mouth yet again.
And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market. Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.
The GC was a failure because it took 3rd. Given the costs of developing a next generation console and the amount of money Microsoft was willing to sink into buying market share it dropped out. Unlike Sega they didn't exit the hardware business but instead found a different niche.
They went from #1 market share in 3rd & 4th generation (NES, SNES) to #2 in the 5th generation (N64) to #3 in the 6th generation (GC).
They've taken #1 again 20 years later but in a different market segment.
Apple has no valuable experience in the games market. They have no franchises. There is no reason to think they are any kind of threat until they show a reason.
In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either. Nor did Apple have any valuable experience in phones until recently.
It is unlikely that Jobs will make a hard push into games but if Apple did wish to enter the game market (likely handhelds first) it would be far more of a threat than Sony today. Especially in the handheld market. Apple is unlikely to go the console route.
You start a thread about the soon-to-come death of the Wii using extremely weak logic (Rock Band's peripherals) and you want to pretend this is about Wii fanboys versus "realists"?
The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop. There's no evidence that people will be happy to buy Wii-type controllers for their PS3 or Xbox 360 or that any developers will start making Wii-type games for the PS3 and Xbox 360. You just tried to string together a bunch of moonbat possibilities and demanded they be treated as obvious future happenings.
vinea:
The point is you don't get the wii to play COD3 and the disagreement is whether Nintendo has the chops anymore to build a console to compete with Sony and MS in that market.
This is the most ridiculous argument of all. "Chops"? What "chops" does one need to build an uber-console?
Are you saying that there's no money to be made catering to the mature console gamer market?
I asked a question, answer it.
Let me try again: Is that (uber-console) market a profitable one to be in right now?
Answer it. Don't just reply with another question. You want to play this "uber-console market" as if it is a separate market, show me some numbers.
So you conceed that Nintendo has been unable to compete?
Nintendo is outselling. I'm not worried about their ability to compete.
Here are some numbers.
If July demonstrated that Sony could improve sales of the PlayStation 3 by 66% by reducing its price by $100, then August revealed that Microsoft can achieve nearly the same with $20 - $50 price-reduction. However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.
Maybe there's something about this you just don't understand.
(Also, compared PS2 sales to PS3 sales. They can't even beat their own last-gen.)
Also:
Meanwhile, the market of portable game consoles shrank again by nearly 18% in August to approximately 583.4 thousand of units across the board. Nintendo sustains its leadership in the field with 383.3 thousand of Nintendo DS sold through and 69.5 thousand of Game Boy Advance bought by gamers in the USA. Sales of Sony PlayStation Portable dropped tangibly to 130.6 thousand of devices.
Show me some numbers with regards to these separate markets.
It is not. There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the Wii. These are the games typically rated Mature and relies on graphics.
There is a significant class of games that will not play well on the PS3 and Xbox 360. These are games typically rated "E" and rely on accessibility and ease-of-use.
("HAY GUYZ I CAN MAKE BLANKET STATEMENTS TOO!")
They have tapped a new market. They are also the 2nd console for traditional gamers because it doesn't cost all that much.
Where are your numbers?
Let me quote the source again: However, even now, when Microsoft Xbox 360 is only $20 more expensive compared to Nintendo Wii, the latter is still more popular on the market, which means that overwhelmingly good acceptance of Wii is not a result of its low price.
I have numbers and sources. You have nothing.
But that does not mean that they STILL compete with Sony and Microsoft because it cannot play the class of games that hard core gamers want to buy. Halo 3, CoH4, Assassins Creed, etc.
Do "hardcore gamers" not want to play Zelda and Mario and Super Smash Brothers, as well?
Not too be presumptuous, but the answer is that they do, in fact, want to play these games.
Nintendo no longer dominates the game industry as it did prior to the Playstation 1.
Nintendo still makes an assload of money, the games industry just grew (do you want numbers on this, too?).
And you're being obtuse again. I never said that Nintendo couldn't EVER compete again but that it is unlikely to be able to for a generation and would have to buy back into the market.
All competitors in technology markets "buy" into them. Sony and MS invested an insane amount of money in their consoles.
Apple has done this by investing in OSX for the iPhone and developing multi-touch hardware. It's been a long time since the Newton. It has been a long time since the Pippin and we're seeing game related patents.
So we see some game-related patents and an iPhone and we're supposed to think that handheld gaming is soon to be Apple's?
Let's see some games.
In 1993 Sony didn't have any valuable experience in the games market either.
True enough, but they made a real investment. What has Apple done?
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
I think that both can and will survive. Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)
It's one thing to introduce controllers, and another thing entirely to make them the default. In the first case, if you don't ship the controller with the game, the average player of your game won't have it.
(The fact is not lost on me that the SixAxis has motion sensors, but by all accounts I have read they are too inaccurate for decent control.)
I agree but Sony or MS could give users two sets of controllers with the purchase of a system. The real challenge as you mention is making them as functional as Nintendo has with the Wii.
And just another key thing to notice from the actual statistics I have provided. The two best-selling consoles from December 2006 to today are the Wii and the PS2. (The worst-selling, by far, being the PS3.)
The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.
Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.
Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
Unless you define "hardcore gamer" as "someone who doesn't have a Wii", what evidence do you have to argue that these are distinct market segments?
...ESRB Mature rating...
So who makes better Everyone games? Nintendo. Who makes better Mature games? Well, given that Nintendo doesn't have any M's for the Wii it sure as heck aint them.
Your argument before wasn't ESRB ratings, it was that Nintendo's market is "skewed to the kid demographics" compared to the xbox and ps3.
If you like casual games that is skewed to the kid demographics then yes, Nintendo makes some of the best in class games. If you like more mature games then no...
backtomac has made a similar statement:
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.
Who is this mystery "hardcore gamer", anyway?
This view about Nintendo's target market is pretty strange considering the fact that the wii is notable for being so heavily marketed toward much older demographics than either the xbox or the ps3, going so far as to include high-profile marketing campaigns directed at seniors. And the virtual console? Nostalgia, aka, older gamers. Simply put, the wii has much broader (including older) target markets than either the ps3 or the xbox.
That's not what is meant by mature here. The closer to nappies you are in either direction, the less 'mature' you tend to be. It's meant in the same way the word 'adult' is used. Why wouldn't an OAP go to see an 'adult' movie? They are adults after all.
They can of course do so but they tend to be less inclined as with children.
The thing about Nintendo even when I was at school is that they were meant for children and as soon as the playstation 1 emerged, this became immediately apparent and I never looked back. I went SNES > PSone > PS2 > PSP. Having known what titles appear for a 'mature' console, I've never had a desire to become part of the childish Nintendo market again and it hasn't changed in the past 15 years.
The reality is that the Wii has been outselling the others since day one and there's no evidence that will stop.
Didn't the PS3 outsell the Wii in Japan very recently?
The two best-selling consoles are also the least capable with regards to sheer graphics power.
Keep talking to me about this mythical "split" market.
Add all the Wii, Gameboy, Gamecube etc customers together - this is one market.
Now add, Xbox, xbox360, PSP, PS2, PS3 customers - this is the 'mature' market.
When you talk about sales numbers you need to consider the fact that Nintendo are not really competing on the same level with anyone else.
A hardcore gamer is defined by the games and usually the level of difficulty. Inexperienced gamers may at times play similar games to hardcore gamers but not in the same way (they tend to run and button bash) and Nintendo's games clearly reflect this with more simplistic controls. It takes a certain degree of experience to be able to take full advantage of a next-gen game and if you are the type of person who picks up a controller and gets killed within 5 minutes playing Call of Duty then you are not a hardcore gamer. The same goes if you just run through the street shooting roughly in the direction of what looks like an enemy.
I think it's clear that we have one or more Wii fanboys, and the rest are, at the worst, realists. I don't think that anyone here is a Wii hater, but we do all realize that the Wii is short lived. Maybe Nintendo will pull an ace out of its sleeve, but doing so will be far more difficult in 2008 than it was in 2006.
You do realize that you are taking the information, ratings and current rankings and drawing all the exact opposite conclusions with them that reality would dictate. Can you explain why a system claimed to appeal to everyone would sell to no one and why systems tailored to a narrow niche would sell blockbuster amounts?
I agree but Sony or MS could give users two sets of controllers with the purchase of a system. The real challenge as you mention is making them as functional as Nintendo has with the Wii.
The real challenge is not going broke. Both Microsoft and Sony are losing big money and both have already undertaken moves that alter their previous strategy in hopes of either hitting price points without losing more money or increasing sales while only losing what they had before. I don't follow this from a gamer perspective but from a financial one. Microsoft had to write off profits to pay for the extended and unreliable XBox360's. Sony had the creator of the Playstation "retire" and move in new management if I recall correctly. Meanwhile Nintendo stock is up almost 300%.
If they started tossing in motion controllers, their profits would go even lower. Nintendo's strategy would be even more validated and the markets, profits, and development would all jump accordingly.
Good debate and interesting points on both sides.
Personally from my experience I think the Wii has permanently split the gaming market into two segments. One segment is the younger or beginning gamer which the Wii is greatly appealing. The other segment is the mature or hardcore gamer which is dominated by the x box 360 and PS3.
I think that both can and will survive. Kids love the Wii and hardcore gamers love their PS3 or Xbox360.
MS or Sony could introduce motion controllers for their systems and put a hurting on the Wii. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. But the Wii has some nice exclusive titles which would help them survive.
I don't think the market has split. I think a very loud and narrow interest group has declared they deserve the attention and development and now when it is time for the dollars to arrive, there aren't enough to go around. Between Battlefield, COD, Unreal, Quake Engine games, Valve, and Medal of Honor (just to name a few) exactly how many people do I need to kill with a gun? It is oversupply and lack of demand. Great graphics cannot overcome that.
Nick