Tretton to Devs: Try Making Hardware Before Griping about Price

[Dr.Finger]

Sony boss Jack Tretton is mad as hell and he isn't going to take it anymore. 'It' being the steady stream of griping from publishers and developers about the price of the Playstation 3 hardware. From the Mercury News (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2007/12/a_qa_with_sony_us_games_chief_jack_tretton_extende d_version.html).Q: And what did you think of Bobby Kotick’s comments at this conference, where he said that Microsoft and Sony really ought to get on board with the lower price and maybe by next year go down to $199 if they really want to compete with the Wii.
A: Well, I think from an unrealistic standpoint, I’m never surprised by that, because a software manufacturer may not be concerned whether a hardware manufacturer is successful or whether they’re profitable. But I think they should be, because without the hardware manufacturer, the software manufacturer has nothing to publish on. But, you know, I’m surprised by it, because I would never venture to suggest what software publishers should price their software at. So I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to suggest what hardware should be priced at.
Q: I guess what he’s calling for is maybe a more nimble reaction to the Wii’s success.
A: I don’t know, maybe he should design a platform.
Quips aside, it's a very good, if long, interview with Tretton that touches on a lot of different issues.

Thanks to GI.biz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31577).

[The Continental]

But, you know, I’m surprised by it, because I would never venture to suggest what software publishers should price their software at.Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the excuse for the $60 next gen price point, increased licensing fees from MS and Sony? Sure, it's not outright telling publishers what to sell their software for, but it's certainly exerting a degree of influence the software publisher does not enjoy over the hardware manufacturer.

[Kamalot]

Note to Mr. Tretton:

The software developers that make games for your system are probably needed to help you sell systems. If you talk smack to them, they may not want to make software for your system, especially when they can make software more easily for the competition, which does NOT have a problem making affordable hardware.

[jromero]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the excuse for the $60 next gen price point, increased licensing fees from MS and Sony? Sure, it's not outright telling publishers what to sell their software for, but it's certainly exerting a degree of influence the software publisher does not enjoy over the hardware manufacturer.

Lol. Exactly. Tretton doesn't want to venture a guess, but his company is directly affecting the price point. It's a vicious circle. Of course, it also doesn't help when your company goes into a joint venture to try and develop the most technologically advanced processor to go into a video game system.

[CaptStu]

Chicken or the egg, I ask. CHICKEN OR THE FRICKIN' EGG?!?!?!?!?!

[WastelandDan]

Q: And what did you think of Bobby Kotick’s comments at this conference, where he said that Microsoft and Sony really ought to get on board with the lower price and maybe by next year go down to $199 if they really want to compete with the Wii.
A: Well, I think from an unrealistic standpoint, I’m never surprised by that, because a software manufacturer may not be concerned whether a hardware manufacturer is successful or whether they’re profitable. But I think they should be, because without the hardware manufacturer, the software manufacturer has nothing to publish on. But, you know, I’m surprised by it, because I would never venture to suggest what software publishers should price their software at. So I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to suggest what hardware should be priced at.

What he seems to fail to grasp here is the fact that if Sony is too expensive to develop for there are two other options, both of which are doing extremely well right now. He makes it sound like if they can't develop for Sony they'll be up shit creek when in reality Sony may be the worst option of the three, both in difficulty to develop games for and in a lower number of sales due to a lower adoption rate of the hardware.

[Kamalot]

Jack Tretton also had a few words about failure:

Q: At what point would you say the predictions can be made about how the winners are going to turn out? There’s a lot of people who are ready to call the game now and say, “it looks like the Wii has won this generation.” I know you say it’s a 10-year cycle, but I don’t think we exactly have to wait 10 years before we find out really who comes in first place.

A: No, but I think that if it’s a one-year cycle, nobody wins. So I think it’s a little premature really to make any predictions. I think if you’re a failed format, you’ll know within three years, and you’ll be out of the business within five. And there are many, many examples of that. If you’re a successful format, I think you have the potential to go on beyond five years, although as far as I know, there’s only two consoles that have ever done that, and we’ve published both of them.

So, the only way a console is a success is if it is sold for more than 5 years?

[Codicier]

...because without the hardware manufacturer, the software manufacturer has nothing to publish on...

except your competitor's lower priced products.

[WastelandDan]

I think if you’re a failed format, you’ll know within three years, and you’ll be out of the business within five.

Strange words from a man representing a company that was responsible for:
Betamax (failed)
Minidisc (failed)
UMD (failed, arguably)

We'll know in the coming years whether blu-ray is a failure (I predict both formats will be replaced at some point by a better, unanticipated format without either becoming a clear winner in this generation). It just seems to me that Tretton just sort of opens his mouth and says stuff without thinking about it at all.

[LionEyez]

Most news articles I read through this site have Sony or a representative of Sony doing/saying things that's just horrible PR, considering the position of the PS3 at the moment.

Why couldn't he just admit their price was too high compared to the competition?

[JediSanf]

He's got a point with Nintendo though. You couldn't do Uncharted, Gears, Crackdown, CoD4, etc. on the Wii. Not in the least because Nintendo still refuses to invest in an online entity.

[Vandenh]

Note to Mr. Tretton:

The software developers that make games for your system are probably needed to help you sell systems. If you talk smack to them, they may not want to make software for your system, especially when they can make software more easily for the competition, which does NOT have a problem making affordable hardware.

No worries... It is all part of the plan (tm).

[Kamalot]

This quote goes right along with what OldJadedGamer was saying the other day. He noted that Spider Man 3 on Bluray came on multiple discs...

And then DVD came out, and initially people said, “Why do you really need DVD? CD has plenty of storage capability,” and five years later, 95 percent of the content was on DVD. I think you’ll see the same thing with Blu-ray. And people say, “Oh, 9 gigs is enough. You just put two, three, four discs in a box.” That obviously isn’t going to fly long term.Isn't that exactly what Bluray is doing now? If your big selling point is, 'don't need to switch discs' but you are making people switch discs, then where's your big selling point?

Jack then goes on to say:
Q: I hear you, but you guys have also, if you don’t want to ignore history, you guys have a history of backing formats that didn’t pan out, whether it’s Betamax or whether it’s mini-disc, or whether it’s the disc player that’s in the PSP.

A: Yeah, and we’ve had some history of having some success as well, but I’m not sure what your question is.

Q: Well, I mean that just because Blu-ray has all these advantages of more space doesn’t mean that it’s going to be the one that wins out in the battle with HD-DVD.

A: Well, I guess it will win out over a platform that doesn’t have a disc format in it. Again, I don’t know if your question is relative to gaming or whether it’s relative to the HD-DVD-Blu-ray battle, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at.So, Bluray will , "win out over a platform that doesn’t have a disc format in it"? What on Earth does that mean? Is Jackkie smoking something? He mentions that Sony has had, "some success" in backing mainstream formats. What success would that be? Having Betamax survive as a niche format while VHS went on to consume the lions share of the home movie market?

Another clear indicator that the PS3 is confusing is that Jack himself does not know if he should be talking about the gaming side, or the movie side of the PS3. Fighting the war on both fronts means Tretton himself is confused about how to clearly respond about his product.

[Telefrog]

He's got a point with Nintendo though. You couldn't do Uncharted, Gears, Crackdown, CoD4, etc. on the Wii. Not in the least because Nintendo still refuses to invest in an online entity.

Strangely, all those games except Uncharted are on the 360.

[Flatpicker]

Jack Tretton also had a few words about failure:



So, the only way a console is a success is if it is sold for more than 5 years?

I guess Nintendo's stopping repair service for the original NES this year doesn't count?
Tretton is such a fool.

[Phades]

So, the only way a console is a success is if it is sold for more than 5 years?

Way to put words in his mouth...

"If you’re a successful format, I think you have the potential to go on beyond five years"

Sounds to me like he's saying that a successful format will have legs and can afford to last longer than a failed one. Makes sense to me.

I'm not defending everything he said, but I don't like to see people's words twisted to mean something they clearly didn't say.

[Ink Asylum]

He's got a point with Nintendo though. You couldn't do Uncharted, Gears, Crackdown, CoD4, etc. on the Wii. Not in the least because Nintendo still refuses to invest in an online entity.

And you couldn't do Wii Sports, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Mario Party 8, etc. on the PS3 or 360....

[Generation ABXY]

He's got a point with Nintendo though. You couldn't do Uncharted, Gears, Crackdown, CoD4, etc. on the Wii. Not in the least because Nintendo still refuses to invest in an online entity.

As I don't know all the in's and out's of how a system works, I'm more than willing to get blasted for this if I'm wrong, but Crackdown doesn't exactly seem like a very demanding game. If it were a first party effort (the only one that seems to put enough time, effort and money into their products), I'm sure Crackdown could have worked. As for the others, yeah, I agree, but Crackdown...

[Venkman]

Strangely, all those games except Uncharted are on the 360.

The point was that nothing like it is on the Wii, methinks. ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the excuse for the $60 next gen price point, increased licensing fees from MS and Sony? Sure, it's not outright telling publishers what to sell their software for, but it's certainly exerting a degree of influence the software publisher does not enjoy over the hardware manufacturer.

A quick google search will reveal many software companies bitching about the cost of next-gen development, with many aspects of cost not associated with licensing fees.

It's the labor intensive nature of creating hi-res, next gen assets and the associated hardware and software needed to create those assets. Studios also need to hire people with even more skills, who demand a higher salary with good reason.

There's your cost increase.

[lockwoodx]

Customers to Sony:

We will not get second or third jobs to afford your console.

[JediSanf]

Strangely, all those games except Uncharted are on the 360.

True, but not my point. It is within the technical limits to put Uncharted, R&C, GT5, FF13, Gears, Halo 3, Crackdown, CoD4, GTA4, et. al. on either th e 360 or PS3 which are within spitting distance of each other regarding price. The same can not be said of the Wii.

Edit: Point granted on Crackdown, tentatively. But I haven't seen a massive world setup on the Wii yet.

[Schnoogs]

The 360 and PS3 only need to be concerned with each others price. Competing with the Wii like that is impossible. It's cheaper hardware to begin with.

[Schnoogs]

And you couldn't do Wii Sports, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Mario Party 8, etc. on the PS3 or 360....

Yeah because they couldnt sell a controller to do it (see Guitar Hero 3 as an example) :rolleyes:

[Justin_Bailey]

I think if you’re a failed format, you’ll know within three years, and you’ll be out of the business within five. And there are many, many examples of that. If you’re a successful format, I think you have the potential to go on beyond five years, although as far as I know, there’s only two consoles that have ever done that, and we’ve published both of them.

Someone should introduce him to the Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super NES, Nintendo 64, Xbox and GameCube. All of those systems had games published on them for at least five years and a few even cracked the magical "10 year" barrier.

[Kamalot]

Q: On the developers and publishers, there is a risk there that as the Wii becomes more successful, that they can shift development resources there. They know that it’s much easier, much, much easier and less costly to develop games for the Wii. What are you trying to do to address that risk, so that you retain your PS 3 developers?

A: Well, I think the key is to demonstrate success, demonstrate a willingness to work with a publisher to do everything you can to give them development tools and resources to make them successful. I think the fruits of that labor is 160-plus games this year for PlayStation 3, 23 developers making games for PlayStation 3. And I don’t see any signs of that changing going forward. If anything, given the recent success that we’ve enjoyed, and given the success we’re enjoying on a worldwide basis, we’re getting a lot of very positive feedback about the prognosis for PlayStation 3, and really a renewed enthusiasm for it, as opposed to a declining attitude towards it.Jack, you state that there are 23 developers making games for the PS3. Yet in July 2006, your company was touting that it had shipped more than 10,000 development kits to more than 200 developers (http://nylatenite.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/sony-ships-over-10000-ps3-development-kits/). What happened to the 177 other development studios?
"The best and brightest development teams are hard at work creating familiar franchises and original IP for the PS3 including – EA, Konami, Sega, Rockstar, Activison and our own internal studios just to name a few. To date we have shipped more than 10,000 development systems to 208 companies ("http://nylatenite.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/sony-ships-over-10000-ps3-development-kits/) in 11 countries, the largest number ever for a PlayStation platform." -Ryan Bowling, SCEA Public Relations manager

[WastelandDan]

"The best and brightest development teams are hard at work creating familiar franchises and original IP for the PS3 including – EA, Konami, Sega, Rockstar, Activison and our own internal studios just to name a few. To date we have shipped more than 10,000 development systems to 208 companies in 11 countries, the largest number ever for a PlayStation platform." -Ryan Bowling, SCEA Public Relations manager

177 of which now reside in dusty closets.

[jpublic]

A: I don’t know, maybe he should design a platform.

Dear Jack,

What are you, five? Give your head a shake, man.

[Generation ABXY]

Edit: Point granted on Crackdown, tentatively. But I haven't seen a massive world setup on the Wii yet.

They're not online, but Scarface and Godfather are fairly decent sized (and the Wii handled the seamless Hogwarts pretty well in Harry Potter). I'm not sure how they compare in size to Crackdown, though.

But, again, I take your point. You could just as easily have put, say, Oblivion in there, and I probably wouldn't have said a thing. There's no mistaking that the other two consoles have a technical edge over the Wii.

[SacredWeasel]

Why is this guy still allowed to do interviews? What is it about Sony that just makes them look like idiots in every single of their quotes about the PS3? And why hasn't anybody been fired over this yet?

It really is ridiculous. Every time they say something about their system, or the competition's, that just makes them look like complete dickheads.

[Johan]

This thread is making me a sad panda. (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/TRND/FP8717~Baby-Panda-Posters.jpg)

The guy has a point. Software developers have different priorities from hardware developers, including on price.

:( Carry on!

Sad... (http://www.mascotcartoon.com/images/energizer.jpg)

[Kamalot]

This thread is making me a sad panda. (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/TRND/FP8717~Baby-Panda-Posters.jpg)

The guy has a point. Software developers have different priorities from hardware developers, including on price.

:( Carry on!

Awwwww!

Dat panda am so sad! :(

[Baron Samedi]

The guy has a point. Software developers have different priorities from hardware developers, including on price.


And jacking into the Matrix :rolleyes:

[Headcase]

Yeah because they couldnt sell a controller to do it (see Guitar Hero 3 as an example) :rolleyes:

Apparently they can't. I don't see one on either console, you'd think they'd make one if they could by now given the Wii's success.

Can't or won't. I don't really care which one. Hypothetically the Wii could run XBox Live, doesn't really matter though, does it?

[Micasa]

The guy has a point. Software developers have different priorities from hardware developers, including on price.

They have the same basic desire though: for the console to sell.

If it was one software publisher/developer saying it, maybe Tretton would be justified in shrugging it off and getting a bit snippy. When it's multiple complaints, and from some of the most influential third-party developers...

[Edmontongamer]

Why is this guy still allowed to do interviews? What is it about Sony that just makes them look like idiots in every single of their quotes about the PS3? And why hasn't anybody been fired over this yet?

It really is ridiculous. Every time they say something about their system, or the competition's, that just makes them look like complete dickheads.

I don't think it's sony's problem for hiring morons. I think they are human
and make mistakes. Every time you read a pr interview (which should not
be news you fanboys) it is about sony. I have seen bad PR by all companies in the past.
Just not as much as lately because Kam and a few others are here to post negative news
about sony everyday. Lol sometimes I wonder if they work for microsoft.

[Venkman]

Although I understand Jack's point about telling a publisher to make their own platform (Sony took a HUGE investment to make the PS3), Something tells me Sony wouldn't like it if a giant like Blizzard Activision or EA designed a platform! He is just asking for trouble. If those two got together and made a console with their software library that makes up a huge percentage of the video game market....

[TheFlyingOrc]

I don't think it's sony's problem for hiring morons. I think they are human
and make mistakes. Every time you read a pr interview (which should not
be news you fanboys) it is about sony. I have seen bad PR by all companies in the past.
Just not as much as lately because Kam and a few others are here to post negative news
about sony everyday. Lol sometimes I wonder if they work for microsoft.

I applaud you for your constant contribution of points nobody has ever heard before.

WastelanDan hit it on the head - they sound EXACTLY like Nintendo did going into the N64 era, and the same crap is happening.

[Micasa]

I don't think it's sony's problem for hiring morons. I think they are human
and make mistakes. Every time you read a pr interview (which should not
be news you fanboys) it is about sony. I have seen bad PR by all companies in the past.
Just not as much as lately because Kam and a few others are here to post negative news
about sony everyday. Lol sometimes I wonder if they work for microsoft.

It's not a mistake, it's the typical Sony corporate culture of arrogance. You'd think that a full year of getting their asses kicked at retail would have dissuaded them a bit, but apparently not.

What are you typing your posts on? It looks like you're pasting it from Notepad, with the weird word-wrap breaks.

[Rasgueado]

Does anyone *really* care about what Jack says about this issue? His statement was asinine, but to be fair he wasn't responding to developers in general as the headline suggests. Jack was responding to a question specifically asked concerning his thoughts about Bobby Kotick's comments.

On the flip side of that... his company is responsible for selling potential consumers to publishers/developers by making sure that people have PS3's. He shouldn't be at all surprised when the people supporting, and hoping to profit, from their platform are unhappy with how Sony is doing.

[huntr]

Customers to Sony:

We will not get second or third jobs to afford your console.

maybe they should concentrate on things they CAN afford then.

the price for consoles arent that bad at all. Do you have a job? I mean seriously, shit costs money, and if youre busy griping about $300-$400 for a console (and im talking about both xbox360 and ps3 here), maybe you shouldnt be playing the games.

[Kamalot]

I don't think it's sony's problem for hiring morons.

I do think it is their problem. Hiring people who aren't morons should be a company policy.

[Baron Samedi]

maybe they should concentrate on things they CAN afford then.

the price for consoles arent that bad at all. Do you have a job? I mean seriously, shit costs money, and if youre busy griping about $300-$400 for a console (and im talking about both xbox360 and ps3 here), maybe you shouldnt be playing the games.

600? That's like twice the number of Spartans! Maybe they can stop those MS Persians from invading...for a day.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Way to put words in his mouth...

"If you’re a successful format, I think you have the potential to go on beyond five years"

Sounds to me like he's saying that a successful format will have legs and can afford to last longer than a failed one. Makes sense to me.
The problem is that a failed format could mean ones that didn't live a full year. Let's see, in this generation it would be the 20GB and 60GB units of the PS3.

Let's just say they failed to live up to their potential.

[bean19]

Does anyone *really* care about what Jack says about this issue? His statement was asinine, but to be fair he wasn't responding to developers in general as the headline suggests. Jack was responding to a question specifically asked concerning his thoughts about Bobby Kotick's comments.

On the flip side of that... his company is responsible for selling potential consumers to publishers/developers by making sure that people have PS3's. He shouldn't be at all surprised when the people supporting, and hoping to profit, from their platform are unhappy with how Sony is doing.

I think it is interesting that he would respond to a suggestion with defensiveness. Tretton is talking to press, so his response should have been something like, "We feel the price of the PS3 at $400 is a bargain, and people tend to agree with us. The Wii is able to sell at a lower price because it uses five-year old technology while the PS3 has the cutting-edge Cell processor and the Blu-Ray player. You can buy a Wii for $250 and play last-generation games with an innovative controller, or you can get a PS3 for next-gen gaming and move up to the HD table".

Getting defensive was stupid - especially since it was really giving him an opportunity to outline the differences between the PS3 and the Wii. The PS3 at $400 isn't a bad deal. The game library isn't up there with the 360's, and the online isn't as good, but there are a lot of multiplatform games, and a Blu-Ray player for HD movies that is included - well, it's worth it.

They need to get a viable model down to $250 as soon as they can and not completely lose their shirts if they want to compete with the Wii, but the same goes for the 360.

I was at Best Buy yesterday. It looks like the Arcade is not that successful. There were about 50 PS3s on a pallet unsold, and about 10 Arcades unsold. The $350 model of the 360 was completely sold out (and the Halo and Elite models if that Best Buy carried any - I didn't look that hard). The 360 should really phase out the Arcade by selling it for $200 and drop the price of the hard-drive unit to $250. . . you know, after the holidays. . . when they aren't sold out anymore.

[huntr]

600? That's like twice the number of Spartans! Maybe they can stop those MS Persians from invading...for a day.

i was referring more to the current prices.

We all know the premium everyone pays for brand new products, and the prices for the consoles seem more than reasonable now. The problem with consumers is that they want deals or the idea of a "deal". Consoles have never been cheap, but you sure do get alot when you buy a PS3

[DangerousDaze]

What he seems to fail to grasp here is the fact that if Sony is too expensive to develop for there are two other options, both of which are doing extremely well right now. He makes it sound like if they can't develop for Sony they'll be up shit creek when in reality Sony may be the worst option of the three, both in difficulty to develop games for and in a lower number of sales due to a lower adoption rate of the hardware.

You do realise that Kotick said the 360 was too expensive as well? But Sony are the bad guys because they have the NERVE to suggest that it might actually cost a lot of money to develop a console and that there has to be a return on that investment somehow. Every comment on this thread along the lines of "Games won't come to the PS3 because it's too expensive" apply equally to the 360 according to Kotick.

[Sir Kodiak]

The problem is that a failed format could mean ones that didn't live a full year. Let's see, in this generation it would be the 20GB and 60GB units of the PS3.

Let's just say they failed to live up to their potential.

A particular configuration is hardly a format. The current models play PS3 games just like the old ones. The PS3 already has enough evidence that it's doing badly without fabricating new ones as well.

[cookyshark]

I do think it is their problem. Hiring people who aren't morons should be a company policy.

And I suppose there are no morons at your company?

I dont know, we've got a few here. Policy or not, you're going to get morons in any company.

[Baron Samedi]

i was referring more to the current prices.

We all know the premium everyone pays for brand new products, and the prices for the consoles seem more than reasonable now. The problem with consumers is that they want deals or the idea of a "deal". Consoles have never been cheap, but you sure do get alot when you buy a PS3

Sony lost it's mindshare with its early high price point. Coupled with a lack of exclusives, smaller library, framerate issues, the format war, Live's superior online and the word of mouth for MS, and it's grim. In two years, Sony might have something. This is the first Xmas that casual consumers will begin to pick up nextgen consoles (I'm not considering the Wii, which is a different ball game), as PS2 is finally fizzling and the market has come to accept that $400 is now the norm. These past two years have primarily been hardcore, well-informed adopters

[Micasa]

You do realise that Kotick said the 360 was too expensive as well? But Sony are the bad guys because they have the NERVE to suggest that it might actually cost a lot of money to develop a console and that there has to be a return on that investment somehow. Every comment on this thread along the lines of "Games won't come to the PS3 because it's too expensive" apply equally to the 360 according to Kotick.

The problem is that Tretton was asked about the comment and got defensive, attacking the publishers. Microsoft reps seem far more practiced at basic PR, and would have probably said something about understanding concerns and how they're working towards the same goals, blah blah blah.

Basically, they'd try to smooth things over without telling publishers they can take a flying leap.

Sony's in third place, but they think they still have the muscle to push publishers into getting in line? That's right up there with the "we don't buy exclusives" crap they were spewing earlier this year.

[blademonkey]

I don't know that I'll hold Jack Tretton’s responses as the end all of media responses, but honestly, he did a pretty good job spin wise. Remember, Sony is heavily dependent on its investors (more so than developers) so how he handles interviews is just as important as what's actually going on in the background. As long as you can permeate the idea that everything is fine then the reality (to the investors) will be just that. It’s a very delicate thing to aggressively defend a product in the face of overwhelming odds.

Having said that, I think that there were questions designed to put Jack into a corner, some of which there were no clear exit strategies. I’m not saying that the questions, and the interviewer was wrong, I’m saying that a lot of it was to put Jack in a “foot in mouth” disposition. His ability to deflect attention is key in persisting a reality fit for investment. Sure, some of his answers were pretty insane at times and some of his later answers seem to contradict his preliminary stance, but the overall impression is that he is confident about "his" products and that he will continue to push.

Consequently, the PS3 is not so much a console or a media box as it is a content deliver medium designed to carry sponsorship (of the highest bidder) to the comfort space of the user (living room). The Holy Grail as he puts it, is piercing that convergence plateau that most manufacturers have striven to "attain" in the living room. A lofty goal, one which we (some of us gamers) were very weary of a few years back. I don’t know that MS is cleared from having the same agenda, but they are surely not making as many marketing faux pas.

In the end, we have to figure out which is the more powerful consumer, the investor or the gamer.

PS: this is all my personal opinion, I reserve the right to be dreadfully wrong. This is in no way meant to put anyone in their place, just my $0.02.

[Micasa]

Remember, Sony is heavily dependent on its investors (more so than developers) so how he handles interviews is just as important as what's actually going on in the background. As long as you can permeate the idea that everything is fine then the reality (to the investors) will be just that. It’s a very delicate thing to aggressively defend a product in the face of overwhelming odds.

That's the thing though, he didn't give the impression things are fine. He gave the impression that he's had enough of all the questions about price. Telling publishers to mind their own business (and by extension to perhaps look elsewhere) isn't something I'd consider designed to put investors at ease.

[Teh Super King]

A particular configuration is hardly a format. The current models play PS3 games just like the old ones. The PS3 already has enough evidence that it's doing badly without fabricating new ones as well.


Just one of them doesn't play PS2 games and the one that does(play some) is still $500.


Sony doesn't know which it wants to do better Blu-Ray or the PS3.

[blademonkey]

That's the thing though, he didn't give the impression things are fine. He gave the impression that he's had enough of all the questions about price. Telling publishers to mind their own business (and by extension to perhaps look elsewhere) isn't something I'd consider designed to put investors at ease.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. And you're correct, it's not putting investors at ease, that's probably why he's sick of the question. I think this is one of those questions that put him in the corner (perhaps rightly so), which causes him to lash out in his response.

Again, if I know you did something wrong, and you know you did something wrong, and I ask you a question that you cannot deny, you're going to be very defensive/angry/whatever.

It doesn't make the demean the facts, it just points out that this is undeniable.

I don't know that I would have faired better in his position and in this line of questioning.
(i'm commenting on his ability to respond to these, not on whether it happened or not).

[Hemalin]

The problem is that Tretton was asked about the comment and got defensive, attacking the publishers. Microsoft reps seem far more practiced at basic PR, and would have probably said something about understanding concerns and how they're working towards the same goals, blah blah blah.

Basically, they'd try to smooth things over without telling publishers they can take a flying leap.

Sony's in third place, but they think they still have the muscle to push publishers into getting in line? That's right up there with the "we don't buy exclusives" crap they were spewing earlier this year.

So instead of being open about what they actually think, you'd prefer to hear more of the company's PR bullshit?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Just one of them doesn't play PS2 games and the one that does(play some) is still $500.


Sony doesn't know which it wants to do better Blu-Ray or the PS3.

It's pretty simple. They decided that PlayStation could never lose, for any reason. They then decided to use their "no way to lose" product to promote BluRay, abandoning everything that made the PS2 great.

[blademonkey]

It's pretty simple. They decided that PlayStation could never lose, for any reason. They then decided to use their "no way to lose" product to promote BluRay, abandoning everything that made the PS2 great.

pardon my ignorance, but how so?

[Evil Avnovice]

Q: And what did you think of Bobby Kotick’s comments at this conference, where he said that Microsoft and Sony really ought to get on board with the lower price and maybe by next year go down to $199 if they really want to compete with the Wii.

A: Well, I think from an unrealistic standpoint, I’m never surprised by that, because a software manufacturer may not be concerned whether a hardware manufacturer is successful or whether they’re profitable. But I think they should be, because without the hardware manufacturer, the software manufacturer has nothing to publish on. But, you know, I’m surprised by it, because I would never venture to suggest what software publishers should price their software at. So I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to suggest what hardware should be priced at.

http://files.samhart.net/humor/fail.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the price of your supercomputer one of a few reasons as to why it's still struggling?

[Phades]

The problem is that a failed format could mean ones that didn't live a full year. Let's see, in this generation it would be the 20GB and 60GB units of the PS3.

Let's just say they failed to live up to their potential.

A hardware configuration revision is hardly a platform failure. Every console gets revised multiple times.


I do think they made a mistake though. Sony just jumped the gun and couldn't make up their mind. Four models in a year? That's just stupid. I actually heard some Target employees asking another if the 40GB PS3 played the same PS3 software as the 60GB because they'd heard it couldn't play certain games the other could (obviously this is the lack of BC, but how should they know that?). Bad move Sony.

[Ink Asylum]

Sony? Arrogant? ( http://next-generationsystems.blogspot.com/2007/06/sonys-greatest-quotes.html)

Some choice quotes:
“The idea of a handheld rivalry with Nintendo is an irrelevance. Those formats don't appear in our planning. It's not a fair comparison; not fair on them, I should stress. That sounds arrogant, maybe, but it's the truth. With the DS , it's fair to say that Nintendo stepped out of the technical race and went for a feature differentiation with the touch screen. But I fear that it won't have a lasting impact beyond that of a gimmick - so the long-lasting appeal of the platform is at peril as a direct result of that."
- Phil Harrison, president of Sony Worldwide Studios, on comparing PSP to DS in an interview with MCV

"(the PS3) is not a game machine…"
- Ken Kutaragi, Regarding the machine’s beefy hardware architecture

"It’s probably too cheap…"
– Ken Kutaragi, Regarding the $499 to $599 price point

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1200 bucks for it."
- Jack Tretton, Sony Computer Entertainment America president and CEO

"I have no concerns about the competition."
- Phil Harrison, president of Sony Worldwide Studios speaking at the Game Developer Conference

"Nintendo knows its target audience, because it has really narrowed that down; and it’s pretty much defined by a boy or girl’s ability to admire Pokemon."
- Phil Harrison, president of Sony Computer Entertainment's Worldwide Studios

Classy!

[Johan]

I wonder sometimes which is worse: a company that talks a lot of crap, or a company whose product is built like a piece of crap...

[Jack B]

I think everyone knows the price points for the 360 and the PS3 were high at the start of this generation. Both are still high, but dropping and they will continue to drop during this generation. Down to $199? The 360 Premium? Probably. The PS3 40gb or similar should be fairly close behind.

The 360 has the edge from the larger installed base, early lead, momentum, more sophisticated online and lower cost per console. The PS3 has the larger fan base, brand and Blu-Ray player.

Assuming the Blu-Ray market gets enough momentum it will help the PS3 down the road, but will it be enough to overcome the 360's early lead, lower cost to manufacturer etc? The PS3 will continue to catchup on online features as well.

And we still haven't really kicked off digital entertainment distribution with IPTV, possible Netflix deals etc. The Netflix deal(s) could happen with Sony or Microsoft. I figured Microsoft since the founder/CEO joined the Microsoft board, but it isn't happening for now and there has been talk about either. Sony also has an edge in Entertainment with their TV/Movie/Music libraries.

It's a long way from over, but Sony needs a few breaks.

[Baron Samedi]

It's a long way from over, but Sony needs a few breaks.

Actually, it is over: Nintendo wins.

[Jack B]

Actually, it is over: Nintendo wins. Actually, the DS wins, but I'm only discussing the two high end HD consoles... ;)

It never fails, that the Wii fans want to get their console in the race! "We matter dammit! We're a console too!". Sure it is, but it's like TV's, cars, gas ranges etc. There are often multiple markets.

It matters not to BMW, how many units Hyndai sells. They're focused on Mercedes. If Hyndai owners want to focus on it, that's fine. Enjoy.

[Ink Asylum]

Actually, it is over: Nintendo wins.

Pretty much. Nintendo: Game, set, match.

It will continue to sell like crazy and, once sales start to slow a bit, the price will drop to $200 or even $150 and they'll get their second wind. Given enough time I can easily see the Wii outselling the PS2. The PS3 will never sell that well.

[Baron Samedi]

Pretty much. Nintendo: Game, set, match.

It will continue to sell like crazy and, once sales start to slow a bit, the price will drop to $200 or even $150 and they'll get their second wind. Given enough time I can easily see the Wii outselling the PS2. The PS3 will never sell that well.

We need to start considering that Wii may very well again be a hot item for next Christmas. After Wii's initial success, third parties sat up and grabbed devkits three or four months after the Wii launch. Good games are on their way from devs other than Nintendo. Wii will be a late bloomer for the hardcore crowd. But watch the fuck out when it hits. Nintendo single-handed saved the market in Japan and for the casuals in the West. Because of them, games are getting the mindshare of the masses like never before. They deserve so much more praise than what we give them here at EvAv. And I, for one, would rather see Nintendo on top than those arrogant fucktards at Sony. At least, they don't make defective hardware and keep their mouths shut.

[The Ligand]

Quote:
I think if you’re a failed format, you’ll know within three years, and you’ll be out of the business within five.

Strange words from a man representing a company that was responsible for:
Betamax (failed)
Minidisc (failed)
UMD (failed, arguably)

We'll know in the coming years whether blu-ray is a failure (I predict both formats will be replaced at some point by a better, unanticipated format without either becoming a clear winner in this generation). It just seems to me that Tretton just sort of opens his mouth and says stuff without thinking about it at all.

Umm, one could argue that his experience with the three formats you mention would make him an expert on failed formats. Words about failed formats are not strange words coming from a company that has actually known them. You may be guilty of doing what you accuse Tretton of doing.

[51|RandoM]

Comments seem fine to me. If some retard developer thinks you can wave a magic wand and slash $100+ off the price of your console, feel free to open their eyes, Jack Tretton.

Oh, Betamax went on to success in the professional markets even if it didn't catch on for home video. :p

Minidisc and UMD weren't attempts to sole source a market and both succeed at what they set out to do. UMD is a pain in the ass but nobody else has come up with a medium that addresses the requirements in that particular case. :p

Nintendo is doing great on hardware sales. Wonder why their software sales are so bad?

[Lord_Don]

At least, they don't make defective hardware and keep their mouths shut.

For that reason alone I love them dearly.

[oldjadedgamer]

When my 5 and 8 year old niece and nephew start asking for a Wii for Christmas, I don't think it's in the same competition of the PS3/360 since they will be playing Wii sports all year long and are completely happy, I'll be buying close to 15 games for my HD system.

Which consumer pushes the industry forward? The little kid that gets one game a year or the guy with a disposable income that buys every new game that gets released?

[Baron Samedi]

When my 5 and 8 year old niece and nephew start asking for a Wii for Christmas, I don't think it's in the same competition of the PS3/360 since they will be playing Wii sports all year long and are completely happy, I'll be buying close to 15 games for my HD system.

Which consumer pushes the industry forward? The little kid that gets one game a year or the guy with a disposable income that buys every new game that gets released?

Or the console that sells 12 million copies during its launch year and will soon have every third party in existence developing for it.

[Ink Asylum]

When my 5 and 8 year old niece and nephew start asking for a Wii for Christmas, I don't think it's in the same competition of the PS3/360 since they will be playing Wii sports all year long and are completely happy, I'll be buying close to 15 games for my HD system.

Which consumer pushes the industry forward? The little kid that gets one game a year or the guy with a disposable income that buys every new game that gets released?

Which company pushes the industry forward? The one that attracts huge new customer groups into the market and innovates game controls? Or the ones that court the same niche market they always have while engaging in a petty DVD format war where the customer gets the shaft?

All three companies are trying to innovate, but Sony and Microsoft never would've gotten moms, grandparents, and girlfriends playing games, and even gotten lazy gamers up off their asses and getting into motion controlled gameplay.

[Jack B]

I have two neighbors who were on a trip with me this weekend. Both were talking about getting a Wii. I didn't tell them not too, I didn't even bother with my two cents worth about the 360, because both have two kids ages 5 to 7 and neither are gamers at all.

The 360 or PS3 makes sense for me, but for them the Wii is the better choice. Maybe mom or dad may get into gaming and want something more high end, but for now the Wii is the ticket.

Additionally, I'm not sure they'd be this interested if they just had a PS2, Xbox or Gamecube as they're only choices. Nintendo has done a great job getting people like this with young kids interested in a game console.

[Royal Fool]

What I liked the most about this interview is how Tretton claims that only the PSX and PS2 have lasted longer than 5 years on the market.

[KingGorilla]

I believe that I just heard John Carmack, Gabe Newell, and Will Wright all say in unison, "Maybe you should try making software before you criticize us."

[Ink Asylum]

What I liked the most about this interview is how Tretton claims that only the PSX and PS2 have lasted longer than 5 years on the market.

Seriously. What an arrogant statement. NES and SNES, Jack?

[grognard66]

The most telling part of the interview for me was Jack's emphasis on International sales to hit their sales goals - basically conceding the North American market. Unfortunately for Sony, their International sales are only marginally better than NA sales.

It really annoys me that Sony believes if they repeat "10-year cycle" often enough it will become true. There has never been, and there will never be, a 10-year console cycle. Sure, technically you may find a PS2 or PS3 in the discount bin at Wal-mart at 10 years with a few kiddie or movie tie-in games 10 years from now but they will not be viable or relevant in the gaming landscape. Technology does not stand still because it is in Sony's best interest for it to do so.

When both MS and Nintendo release their next consoles within 5 years Sony will have to respond in kind. Frankly, as disingenuous as Sony is, I wouldn't be surprised if they're the ones who launch first for the next generation as it's usually the loser of a generation who needs to respond fastest to cut their losses and change the existing dynamic. Will anyone in the Sony Defense Force remember this 10-year claim and hold Sony accountable to it if that time comes? ;)

[LongStepMantis]

I could easily bash on Sony mouthpieces, but it's just too easy.
Instead I will just ask, what exactly makes them think they're hot enough shit to demand anything?

Last time i checked their "We're better than you, and we know it" attitude was losing them the console war. Oh well.

I can see it from their point of view, but cmon...do they have a policy against acting as if they're part of our reality?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Actually, the DS wins, but I'm only discussing the two high end HD consoles... ;)

It never fails, that the Wii fans want to get their console in the race! "We matter dammit! We're a console too!". Sure it is, but it's like TV's, cars, gas ranges etc. There are often multiple markets.

It matters not to BMW, how many units Hyndai sells. They're focused on Mercedes. If Hyndai owners want to focus on it, that's fine. Enjoy.

Well, this is different, as tire manufacturers won't quit making tires for BMWs and start making them for the Hyundai.

And Nintendo's software numbers are not that bad. I can't recall who it was, but some poster demonstrated that they were pretty similar to the PS3's numbers - the difference is that the 360 is still doing fantastic.

[grognard66]

When my 5 and 8 year old niece and nephew start asking for a Wii for Christmas, I don't think it's in the same competition of the PS3/360 since they will be playing Wii sports all year long and are completely happy, I'll be buying close to 15 games for my HD system.

Which consumer pushes the industry forward? The little kid that gets one game a year or the guy with a disposable income that buys every new game that gets released?

I'm with you, oldjadedgamer (of course, I'm also a geezer gamer so maybe we're just grumpy old men). I don't think the Wii should even be included in the same dialogue as 360/PS3. I don't see anyone including those pac-man/Mortal Kombat joysticks that come bundled with the game in the bases in hardware sales so why should the Wii be included? The software attach rate for Wii clearly indicates that the system has developed more as a toy than as a traditional console.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's clearly not in the same category.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm with you, oldjadedgamer (of course, I'm also a geezer gamer so maybe we're just grumpy old men). I don't think the Wii should even be included in the same dialogue as 360/PS3. I don't see anyone including those pac-man/Mortal Kombat joysticks that come bundled with the game in the bases in hardware sales so why should the Wii be included? The software attach rate for Wii clearly indicates that the system has developed more as a toy than as a traditional console.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's clearly not in the same category.

Oh please. Put away your "I'm too hip to play the Wii" attitude. Within its first year the Wii has more interesting software than the PS3 does, particularly exclusives. It's as valid a platform as the 360 or the PS3. Of course, it's handy to want to disregard it because it's kicking Sony's and Microsofts collective asses.

[laggerific]

And you couldn't do Wii Sports, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Mario Party 8, etc. on the PS3 or 360....

I don't think there is anything technically preventing them from working on the system...they would just need to come with a special controller, similar to a dance pad or a lightgun.

[KingGorilla]

Oh please. Put away your "I'm too hip to play the Wii" attitude. Within its first year the Wii has more interesting software than the PS3 does, particularly exclusives. It's as valid a platform as the 360 or the PS3. Of course, it's handy to want to disregard it because it's kicking Sony's and Microsofts collective asses.

The Wii is a lot more viable if you never look behind the veil. Once you do, you see it for all of its conventional and often haphazard games where bad design choices(Mario Party) or poor controls are apologized for. Almost makes me wish I could take the red pill and forget it all.

[oldjadedgamer]

There were games that were anticipated for the holidays that I think are delivering. I think “Uncharted” and “Ratchet & Clank” are two very good examples of that.

Looking at recent sales numbers of both of these titles, I very curious on Jack's definition of what "delivering" is.

[KingGorilla]

That reminds me.
Europe and Japan get Gran Tourismo, but NOT the US? I mean seriously, the biggest racing franchise, and biggest Playstation exclusive, does not make it to the US and he is bitching?

[Rasgueado]

I think it is interesting that he would respond to a suggestion with defensiveness. Tretton is talking to press, so his response should have been something like, "We feel the price of the PS3 at $400 is a bargain, and people tend to agree with us. The Wii is able to sell at a lower price because it uses five-year old technology while the PS3 has the cutting-edge Cell processor and the Blu-Ray player. You can buy a Wii for $250 and play last-generation games with an innovative controller, or you can get a PS3 for next-gen gaming and move up to the HD table".

Getting defensive was stupid - especially since it was really giving him an opportunity to outline the differences between the PS3 and the Wii. The PS3 at $400 isn't a bad deal. The game library isn't up there with the 360's, and the online isn't as good, but there are a lot of multiplatform games, and a Blu-Ray player for HD movies that is included - well, it's worth it.

They need to get a viable model down to $250 as soon as they can and not completely lose their shirts if they want to compete with the Wii, but the same goes for the 360.

I was at Best Buy yesterday. It looks like the Arcade is not that successful. There were about 50 PS3s on a pallet unsold, and about 10 Arcades unsold. The $350 model of the 360 was completely sold out (and the Halo and Elite models if that Best Buy carried any - I didn't look that hard). The 360 should really phase out the Arcade by selling it for $200 and drop the price of the hard-drive unit to $250. . . you know, after the holidays. . . when they aren't sold out anymore.

Hrmm... it's a good thing mega-conglomerates don't base their marketing and sales strategy based on numbers from eyeballing shelf stock from one Best Buy.

[Baron Samedi]

The Wii is a lot more viable if you never look behind the veil. Once you do, you see it for all of its conventional and often haphazard games where bad design choices(Mario Party) or poor controls are apologized for. Almost makes me wish I could take the red pill and forget it all.

Mario Party is for kids, not monkeys. Much like the DS launch year, I expect wand-wiggling to be gimmicky. It will soon grow into its own. I find it ironic that you call Nintendo conventional, when 360 is championing racers and FPS. Hell, that's Halo 3 and CoD4, Forza 2 and PGR4.

[KingGorilla]

Mario Party is for kids, not monkeys. Much like the DS launch year, I expect wand-wiggling to be gimmicky. It will soon grow into its own. I find it ironic that you call Nintendo conventional, when 360 is championing racers and FPS. Hell, that's Halo 3 and CoD4, Forza 2 and PGR4.

I do not remember calling the Xbox's offerings innovative. Like I said, once you look behind the veil, it is a sad and lonely place. With just about every Wii Game I have played, I have moved cursors around a screen before. And the "motion control" is nothing more than a Rube Goldberg method of pressing a button. I suppose that most of the mini game collections feel new and different, if you have never played those style games before. Which is the Wii's strength, most of the audience is either too young or too ignorant of games to know that they are playing decade+old concepts. Sort of like how the GTA fans are unaware of Driver or Halo fans were FPS virgins.

Something does not have to be the most innovative thing since Pong to be fun to the player. Do the 700k Forza owners mind that they are just playing Hi Def Pole Position?

[Baron Samedi]

My bad, you didn't call 360 conventional; however, things will change once third parties start putting out Wii software. As for innovation, maybe. I still think Wii Sports is nothing short of the future.

[LongStepMantis]

I just want them to stop jamming their foot down their own throat before the guy shits out a loafer. The arrogance is what gets me. The majesty that was "PS2-era Sony" is dead. The sooner they realize that we realize that, the sooner they can move on.

I'm not hating on the PS3 itself, because any of the console companies would be in the same boat if they repeatedly opened their mouths and let "stupid" come out. Their PR is what's killing them.

[KingGorilla]

My bad, you didn't call 360 conventional; however, things will change once third parties start putting out Wii software. As for innovation, maybe. I still think Wii Sports is nothing short of the future.

I have said before, the Wii is like a retarded, paraplegic, that is blind in one eye, and drools; heaven help you if you comment on the obvious deficiencies or notice them. Just pretend you do not notice them, and be polite.

[Kamalot]

I just want them to stop jamming their foot down their own throat before the guy shits out a loafer.

This is a freakin funny image.

[oldjadedgamer]

I have said before, the Wii is like a retarded, paraplegic, that is blind in one eye, and drools; heaven help you if you comment on the obvious deficiencies or notice them. Just pretend you do not notice them, and be polite.

I've had a Wii since launch and in this whole time I've learned when discussing the Wii on web forums, you just have to grin and nod and move on.

[Ink Asylum]

I do not remember calling the Xbox's offerings innovative. Like I said, once you look behind the veil, it is a sad and lonely place. With just about every Wii Game I have played, I have moved cursors around a screen before. And the "motion control" is nothing more than a Rube Goldberg method of pressing a button. I suppose that most of the mini game collections feel new and different, if you have never played those style games before. Which is the Wii's strength, most of the audience is either too young or too ignorant of games to know that they are playing decade+old concepts. Sort of like how the GTA fans are unaware of Driver or Halo fans were FPS virgins.

Oh sure, you could play most of the Wii games by translating the motion controls onto a regular 360 or PS3 gamepad, but that makes them a whole lot less fun. What's new about Wii games isn't minigame collections, it's using natural human motions to control your no screen character. Rather than pressing X to swing a bat, you actually swing your arms. Given just that comparison, I will take the latter experience over the former.

Sure, there is plenty of fun to be had with regular games on a classic controller, but there are a ton of game types that are just much more fun merely by working them around the Wii controller.

[jadkins555]

Actually, the DS wins, but I'm only discussing the two high end HD consoles... ;)

The funny part about the old Phil Harrison quote regarding the Nintendo DS is that, as has been mentioned before on this site, the DS alone may outsell the PSP, PS2, and PS3 combined this holiday season.

[KingGorilla]

Honestly Ink, most of the Mini Game collections like Cooking Mama, Trauma Center, or Link's Crossbow training felt a lot like mouse training games that we did in grade school. Point at this, follow this line, etc.

[karaliusbronius]

haha, very funny, ps3 or xbox360 at $199, maybe some sort of core model. What would be the point? He is suggesting to compete with the Wii? I don't think so. Sony or Microsoft isn't competing against the Wii, they are competing against each other. If they did that, then would have to drop the price of the PSP. The packaged PSP Slim is $199, so I don't see having the price of the PSP and the PS3 being the same. And why the heck is everybody so up in arms about the Wii anyways? They just have really good marketing, has anyone actually played any of the games that aren't first party. I have Zelda, freak'n amazing and Mario Galaxy is fun as heck, but come on, the graphics blow, no online, no multiplayer, no demos, no this, no that. Who cares about wii channels that are pointless for gamers.

When it comes down to it, the Wii is awesome for just playing some fun games, but my PS3 and XBOX360s are become awesome, High Def multimedia powerhouses that work with my HDTV, sound system, and home network flawlessly.

The Wii is like Apple, awesome at gimmicks and marketing. Now if only PS3 could deliver more software on time and if XBOX360 could give more customization to their system.

[Purple Santa]

Note to Mr. Tretton:

The software developers that make games for your system are probably needed to help you sell systems. If you talk smack to them, they may not want to make software for your system, especially when they can make software more easily for the competition, which does NOT have a problem making affordable hardware.

It's obvious Mr. Tretton doesn't get it no matter how frustrated you are at the "bad image" you can't lash out at your supplier for your hardware. Well you can...just really bad PR. PR is everything in business. I'm constantly amazed how some executives make it to the positions they do.

[grognard66]

Oh please. Put away your "I'm too hip to play the Wii" attitude. Within its first year the Wii has more interesting software than the PS3 does, particularly exclusives. It's as valid a platform as the 360 or the PS3. Of course, it's handy to want to disregard it because it's kicking Sony's and Microsofts collective asses.

Ink Asylum, I've had a Wii since launch day. Sadly, I literally went through a 4 month period where I didn't even turn it on. I am glad to say that I have several games under the X-mas tree though which should remedy the situation. I wasn't really comparing Wii software to PS3 software because the state of both game libraries was so pathetic until the end of this year. I was really comparing Wii to the 360.

There is no doubt that Nintendo has been tremendously successful moving hardware, but why is the Wii selling a fraction of the software of the 360 when the install base is almost identical now? My point is that it is not a traditional console and should not be part of the same conversation as 360/PS3 - just like we break away DS/PSP from the conversation of home consoles.

[Kamalot]

Honestly Ink, most of the Mini Game collections like Cooking Mama, Trauma Center, or Link's Crossbow training felt a lot like mouse training games that we did in grade school. Point at this, follow this line, etc.

That's interesting. I suspect that there is a lot of training going on with new Wii customers. In the early stages of any new input device, a learning process is underway as people build the muscle-memory to use the device instinctively. I wonder if all these mini-games and training games are the foothold that non-gamers need before they can step up to more advanced offerings.

I know for a fact that Wii Play was designed to train new Wii owners on how to use the pointer.

[jpublic]

I've said it before and I'll say it again to you people who claim the PS3 and 360 aren't competing with the Wii: You've got it backwards.

The Wii isn't competing with the PS3 and 360. Nintendo can lose the hardcore market and still be a sucess.

The PS3 and 360 *are* competing with the Wii. MS and Sony can't lose the HC market or they fail.

[KingGorilla]

That's funny, because it seems that Nintendo has already lost much of the hardcore in Japan. The Zelda and Mario sales figures from Japan are almost insulting.

[LongStepMantis]

That's interesting. I suspect that there is a lot of training going on with new Wii customers. In the early stages of any new input device, a learning process is underway as people build the muscle-memory to use the device instinctively. I wonder if all these mini-games and training games are the foothold that non-gamers need before they can step up to more advanced offerings.

I know for a fact that Wii Play was designed to train new Wii owners on how to use the pointer.

That's a pretty good point. I mean, think of most of us and how we take to console controls like it's second nature. Atari started us off with a joystick with one button, graduated to NES/SMS controllers with a d-pad and 2 buttons, Genesis had 3, then 6. SNES introduced shoulder buttons, and 4 face buttons. PSX had 4 buttons, 4 shoulder buttons. Then analog sticks came. If you started playing at the later stages, it might have been kind of overwhelming.

There are still PS2 games my wife won't play because of the amount of buttons that need to be used, often in combination. Like GTA. I don't think twice about all the button usage, it's like instinct. She won't play it because using the shoulders, the face buttons, and both analogs at once is frustrating for her.

So saying the Wii is the launching point for a new control system wouldn't be a bad idea. They can then improve on that design with the Wii2, and so on.

[Zanzibar]

Must've hit a nerve there, dontcha think?

Honestly, it must really get tiring having board meeting after board meeting with your toes lit to the fire, everybody asking when the fuck the system is gonna 'take off' like Jack & Co. have been promising for every fiscal quarter. I almost feel sorry for him.

..then I think of the Dreamcast.

DIAF, Jack.

[Baron Samedi]

That's interesting. I suspect that there is a lot of training going on with new Wii customers. In the early stages of any new input device, a learning process is underway as people build the muscle-memory to use the device instinctively. I wonder if all these mini-games and training games are the foothold that non-gamers need before they can step up to more advanced offerings.

I know for a fact that Wii Play was designed to train new Wii owners on how to use the pointer.

Wii - it's the gateway drug.

Again, this is the launch year for Wii (and PS3). 360 had its own drought the launch year. The software-to-hardware ratio would be similar if Wii's hardcore audience was the dataset, and not all these casual gamers. Shovelware takes down the average score. Wii has a lot of great software for the hardcore gamer, it's just been overshadowed by MS's prominence and, most notably, hype. Nintendo doesn't advertise to the hardcore gamer anymore. Corruption had almost no advertising. So Nintendo relies on its fans to get the word of mouth out, and makes off like bandits because of it.

That's funny, because it seems that Nintendo has already lost much of the hardcore in Japan. The Zelda and Mario sales figures from Japan are almost insulting.

One look at the 360 and PS3 sales numbers will show you why: the Japanese love them their portables. Hardcore Japanese gamers in general are becoming an endangered species. Their market is much older than ours. One wonders what our market would like in a couple of years if it wasn't for the Wii. The PC market is also indicative of this.

[Chainblast]

Note to Mr. Tretton:

The software developers that make games for your system are probably needed to help you sell systems. If you talk smack to them, they may not want to make software for your system, especially when they can make software more easily for the competition, which does NOT have a problem making affordable hardware.

You think that limiting the number of potential buyers is a good thing? And last time I checked Microsoft didn't meet Activision's standards either. Are you referring to the Wii then? Please say no.

Activision must know it's not that simple. Both MS and Sony loose so much money selling their systems at their current price. This is an industry problem and I don't think it's that easy to change. Gamers have become accustom to $50 games, maybe it's time those prices increased. That and perhaps it's time for hardware manufactures to form a truce outlining the number of years they need to go before releasing new hardware. Longer console life cycles are probably the most beneficial thing the industry can receive at this point. The status quo is not sustainable.

But hey I'm not in the industry so I no shit all.

[Headcase]

That's funny, because it seems that Nintendo has already lost much of the hardcore in Japan. The Zelda and Mario sales figures from Japan are almost insulting.

Seems more like Japan as a whole isn't playing so many hardcore games, across all consoles.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink Asylum, I've had a Wii since launch day. Sadly, I literally went through a 4 month period where I didn't even turn it on. I am glad to say that I have several games under the X-mas tree though which should remedy the situation. I wasn't really comparing Wii software to PS3 software because the state of both game libraries was so pathetic until the end of this year. I was really comparing Wii to the 360.

There is no doubt that Nintendo has been tremendously successful moving hardware, but why is the Wii selling a fraction of the software of the 360 when the install base is almost identical now? My point is that it is not a traditional console and should not be part of the same conversation as 360/PS3 - just like we break away DS/PSP from the conversation of home consoles.

It's a traditional console if you're a fan of the games on it. I didn't get a 360 until last month because I wasn't a fan of any of the games on it, but I purchased a Wii on the release date and have nearly a dozen games for it in its first year. I don't know how you can call a console that has Zelda: TP, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Super Paper Mario, and Mario Strikers as exclusives "not a traditional console." That's at least as many quality "hardcore gamer" exclusives as the PS3 has in the same time frame.

As for multi-platform titles, it has Resident Evil 4, Guitar Hero III, Madden, Marvel: UA and more.

So how again is it not a "traditional console"? Because it isn't overflowing with racers, shooters, sports games, and PC ports?

If you're going to compare the Wii to the 360 and not the PS3, why not wait a year and compare Nintendo at age 2 with where 360 is now at age 2. That's a more appropriate comparison than putting a 1 year old system that most 3rd parties ignored until it started selling like crazy to a 2 year old system that every third party was chomping at the bit for.

If I had bought a 360 at launch there would have been numerous 4 month periods where I wouldn't have touched the thing because the games didn't interest me. It took two years for a couple of games (Assassin's Creed, Rock Band, and Mass Effect) to come out and make the purchase worthwhile for me. Was 360 not a traditional console for two years because I didn't like the games that are on it? Am I not a traditional gamer because I'm not into mature shooters, racers, and sports games?

For every traditional gamer that has a Wii collecting dust, there's one that plays their Wii several times a week.

[KingGorilla]

Seems more like Japan as a whole isn't playing so many hardcore games, across all consoles.
They are on the portables. As was already stated. Didn't Monster Hunter on the PSP set some sort of record? The Japanese are doing most of their gaming on cell phones and hand helds. Which is part of the issue that the fellow in the article is getting at. And I mentioned, these small scale and casual projects are leaving the people who benefit from large budget games out in the cold. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest had epic soundtracks. But Wii Sports is beeps.

[jpublic]

Portable gaming *is* the wave of Japan, it seems, and that isn't going to stop, only get more and more pronounced. Where NorAm, Europe, and the rest of the world have TIME to sit in front of a TV and play games, the Japanese are spending too much time on the go (probably due to ridiculous commutes).

[MasterKwan]

My Wii is collecting dust. We have the new Zelda too but, all we're playing right now is Mass Effect. I think someone had a very telling point discussing the attach rate. I suspect third party developers will be disappointed in Wii software sales. I buy numerous titles a month for the 360, some for the PS3 and really none for the Wii.

[Jack B]

I've said it before and I'll say it again to you people who claim the PS3 and 360 aren't competing with the Wii: You've got it backwards.

The Wii isn't competing with the PS3 and 360. Nintendo can lose the hardcore market and still be a sucess.

The PS3 and 360 *are* competing with the Wii. MS and Sony can't lose the HC market or they fail.

Did you mean "HC" as "Hardcore"? You can not be serious. They will never lose the hardcore market to the Wii. Period. Maybe with the Wii Too or whatever the next version of the Wii is called, but not with the Wii. If the Wii sells more units this generation they will have kicked ass and brought in a ton of new gamers, but they won't have won the hardcore market. The Wii's graphics, audio and online aren't even close to the 360/PS3's. My definition of audiophile or hardcore gamer or any other tech category would not include a low end piece of equipment, no matter how many copies of Mario Galaxy or Wii Sports type games are sold.

If you play 200 hours of COD 4 or Mass Effect or Resistance you're a hardcore gamer. If you play 200 hours of Wii Tennis you need to seek medical help. The Wii targets a different market. Sure they have a few games like Madden, of Medal of Honor etc, but it's not the hardcore gamers platform.

No question, some and I say "some", hardcore gamers or gamers who have a 360 or a PS3 will also buy a Wii, but no one who is a hardcore gamer by the markets definition would choose a Wii over a 360/PS3. If they did they'd have to turn in their "hardcore" gamer label.

It's like saying Mercedes Benz is going to lose the luxury sedan market to the Hyndai. Never going to happen until Hyndai starts making luxury sedan's. If someone trades in their Mercedes for a Hyndai they are no longer in the luxury car market.

Note: Did this even need explaining? ***scratches head*** :confused:

[Baron Samedi]

If you play 200 hours of COD 4 or Mass Effect or Resistance you're a hardcore gamer. If you play 200 hours of Wii Tennis you need to seek medical help. The Wii targets a different market. Sure they have a few games like Madden, of Medal of Honor etc, but it's not the hardcore gamers platform.

I disagree with that statement. I play Nintendo games because they seem so simple on the surface, but underneath are something so deep. If you think Smash Bros is a button masher, then sure, I understand where you're coming from since you don't play Nintendo games. But I've definitely sunk my fair share into Wii Sports.

[Jack B]

I disagree with that statement. I play Nintendo games because they seem so simple on the surface, but underneath are something so deep. If you think Smash Bros is a button masher, then sure, I understand where you're coming from since you don't play Nintendo games. But I've definitely sunk my fair share into Wii Sports.

Hehe, call 911! ;) Just kidding. I've only played Wii Tennis, but I've heard the depth and complexity of the sim/physics models aren't the strong point of the Wii Sports games. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I'm sure there are people who play 200 hours of checkers and tic tac toe and they don't require medical help, but many of them are 90+ years old. :D OK, just kidding again, but my point is the majority do not. I also was making a joke, so I needed to exaggerate.

There are some complex games on the Wii. Guitar Hero, Madden, etc, but they are few and far in between and certainly not what draws someone to buy a Wii. The simple (ie casual) games are what draw people to a Wii. Good for some, not for everyone.

[Baron Samedi]

I think Wii Sports is fairly deep. For a multiplayer game, it's deep. That said, I do agree that the only two games that have grabbed me have been Excite Truck and Galaxy (and Sin & Punishment). Microsoft stole Nintendo's thunder. We shall see, though. Worse case scenario, greed wins out and Nintendo says fuck you to the hardcore. Best case scenario, third parties stop producing shovelware...

[Chameleo]

Did you mean "HC" as "Hardcore"? You can not be serious. They will never lose the hardcore market to the Wii. Period.

i agree with you - but i think you misconstrued what he was saying.

he said that if the wii lost the hardcore market (as if they ever had it) it'd be fine, (which is true, because the wii obviously doesn't have the hardcore market).

but if the 360 or PS3 lost the hardcore market - they'd (ps3/360) be screwed....

not that either of them might lose it to the Wii - that is, as you've said, unfathomable. but if either of them lost it all together....

thats why he asserts that all the 'hardcores' have the 'competition' argument opposite.

and i tend to agree with that view of things.

[AversionFX]

Best case scenario, third parties stop producing shovelware...

I don't think that's even possible. The trend with video games this generation (and last too, I'm sure), is to just produce what is known to work. With production costs as high as they are, it's really difficult to innovate, in my opinion. Hence why you see so much cookie cutter garbage.

[Ancalagon]

I think a very important question is, what defines hardcore? Is it the hardware? Or the games?

I say its the games, and on that front, the Wii is a little behind, but is slowly but surely delivering. People still play Starcraft - is that game no longer hardcore because it runs on something less powerful than my cellphone?

No, starcraft is way hardcore (when played properly). So all this 360/PS3 = hardcore and Wii = softcock is the same kind of BS from people who keep their 3D Mark scores sigged. What difference does it make to whether a game is hardcore or not?

Yes, I'm aware that most of the Wii games out right now are party games and bad ports. Some of them, such as Metroid Prime, do qualify for the hardcore moniker as far as I'm concerned though.

Maybe the test if something is hardcore or not, is to sit a non gamer down in front of the game. if he enjoys it, its not hardcore.

[Ink Asylum]

No question, some and I say "some", hardcore gamers or gamers who have a 360 or a PS3 will also buy a Wii, but no one who is a hardcore gamer by the markets definition would choose a Wii over a 360/PS3. If they did they'd have to turn in their "hardcore" gamer label.

Oh noes! I'm not a "hardcore" gamer because I would rather have a Wii than a 360 or PS3! I'm no longer allowed to hang out with the "cool kidz" calling each other fags in Halo 3!

If that's how you define a "hardcore" gamer than I'm glad I'm not part of that demographic. So what am I? I've been playing games since I was in kindergarten, have had a gaming PC for just as long, owned one, two, or all three of the major systems in each generation, and purchase probably two dozen games a year. But because I own more Wii games than 360 games this generation I'm not a hardcore gamer?

Whatever. Enjoy your tough, extreme, hardcore, manly games while you look down your nose at the only company this generation to take a risk and shake up the industry. I'm sure Nintendo will be weeping when they realize they lost the "hardcore" market.

The fools.

[Johan]

...while you look down your nose at the only company this generation to take a risk and shake up the industry.

Microsoft took a risk in releasing hardware that was obviously not rigorously tested.

Sony took a risk in tying the success of the PS3 to a new HD media format (which caused delays and a tough sell on price).

I like what Nintendo is doing, myself, but there are others taking risks! :)

[Ink Asylum]

Microsoft took a risk in releasing hardware that was obviously not rigorously tested.

Sony took a risk in tying the success of the PS3 to a new HD media format (which caused delays and a tough sell on price).

I like what Nintendo is doing, myself, but there are others taking risks! :)

I'd like less of those kinds of risks, thank you. :)

[DangerousDaze]

I don't think it's fair to say that Nintendo hasn't taken risks with the Wii, especially from a controller perspective. Arguably it was the riskiest direction shift of any of the next-gen consoles, evidenced by Sony's half-hearted copycat attempt with the Sixaxis, and I believe even MSFT said they would keep an eye on the situation.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't think it's fair to say that Nintendo hasn't taken risks with the Wii, especially from a controller perspective. Arguably it was the riskiest direction shift of any of the next-gen consoles, evidenced by Sony's half-hearted copycat attempt with the Sixaxis, and I believe even MSFT said they would keep an eye on the situation.

Nintendo really went against the odds, at least from the perspective of the gaming media. Nearly everyone in the industry expected the Wii to bomb while the PS3 soared. Particularly 3rd parties. Ubisoft was one of the few to take a risk with a Wii-specific launch-title that wasn't a port, and they did very well because of that. Suddenly all the other 3rd parties realized they put all their eggs in the wrong basket and this year they've been scrambling to make Wii-specific titles. Zack & Wiki was one of the first great games to come out of a 3rd party, but it won't be the last.

[Jack B]

Oh noes! I'm not a "hardcore" gamer because I would rather have a Wii than a 360 or PS3! I'm no longer allowed to hang out with the "cool kidz" calling each other fags in Halo 3!

If that's how you define a "hardcore" gamer than I'm glad I'm not part of that demographic. So what am I? I've been playing games since I was in kindergarten, have had a gaming PC for just as long, owned one, two, or all three of the major systems in each generation, and purchase probably two dozen games a year. But because I own more Wii games than 360 games this generation I'm not a hardcore gamer?

Whatever. Enjoy your tough, extreme, hardcore, manly games while you look down your nose at the only company this generation to take a risk and shake up the industry. I'm sure Nintendo will be weeping when they realize they lost the "hardcore" market.

The fools.

I don't think your post is a fair representation of my point. I have continually said I admire the hell out of what Nintendo has done. I don't in any way thumb my nose at Nintendo or anyone who plays a Nintendo.

I said the Hardcore label applies to the demographic buying 360's and PS3's and the simple (ie casual) market applies to those buying the Wii. Don't put words in my mouth. I also said there are hardcore gamers that own both.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a gamer, but if you're willing to argue that the Nintendo market is hardcore and the 360/PS3 market is simple (casual) then you're in for an uphill battle. Good luck. :)

[Ink Asylum]

I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a gamer, but if you're willing to argue that the Nintendo market is hardcore and the 360/PS3 market is simple (casual) then you're in for an uphill battle. Good luck. :)

I object to your definition of "Hardcore." Hardcore =/= Shooters, racers, and sports games in my mind. Nor does it mean Mature rated games. Harcore gamers are people that follow game industry news, have a long history of playing games, and regularly play games for hours on end. Using that definition, all three consoles appeal to hardcore gamers. The distinction between the Wii and the PS3/360 is not between casual/hardcore, it's between different game genres. The Wii has a different genre focus than the other systems, but it has as many, if not more, solid offerings for hardcore players as the PS3, they're just in different genres.

I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and it took me two years before I bought the 360, and I don't see myself buying a PS3 for another year, possibly two, if I ever buy one. But I had a Wii on day one and would never give it up to exclusively play either of its competitors.

A good system should have offerings for both hardcore and casual players. The Wii does, that's why its doing so well. The 360 and PS3 are attempting that as well with Live Arcade, PSN, and family-friendly titles, but they haven't had as much success.

[Jack B]

i agree with you - but i think you misconstrued what he was saying.

I've read it again and I understand what you mean. I made the leap from the 360/PS3 "losing the hardcore market" to the Wii "taking" it from them. The 360/PS3 are offering what the hardcore market wants (except lower price and more features, not less), so I didn't see any other point he could be making.

IMO, for the 360/PS3 to lose the hardcore market you'd have to make the assumption the Wii stole their hardcore customers, which was my point. No way in hell that will happen, IMO.

The Wii is an entirely different market. There are some people, that will buy both, but the hardcore market, which is plenty big is craving better graphics, better sound, better online.... The Wii is the low end on all those fronts. Hardcore "tech" people in any category of products don't choose low end equipment. Never have, likely never will. It's core to the definition of hardcore.

he said that if the wii lost the hardcore market (as if they ever had it) it'd be fine,(which is true, because the wii obviously doesn't have the hardcore market).

but if the 360 or PS3 lost the hardcore market - they'd (ps3/360) be screwed....

not that either of them might lose it to the Wii - that is, as you've said, unfathomable. but if either of them lost it all together....

thats why he asserts that all the 'hardcores' have the 'competition' argument opposite.

and i tend to agree with that view of things.

I'd agree with you intrepretation, but his word of "competition" again construes competing for the "same" hardcore market. Very flawed to use the word competition.

I guess it's a roundabout way of saying the Wii is canabalizing some of the 360/PS3 sales, but he didn't say that... I'd agree with a canabalizing comment to a degree, but it has very little to do with the 360/PS3 losing the hardcore market to the Wii.

It has to do with the Wii offering a lower price point console to people who weren't hardcore in the first place. If they buy a Wii and are hardcore, they will buy a PS3/360 as soon as they can afford it. The 360/PS3 are the hardcore console platforms.

The Wii is expanding the market, but some Nintendo fans are getting a little caught up in World domination. They have yet to face the sub $249 price points and the bulk of the media hub features with IPTV, Netflix integration, DVR capabilities, Sony's music, entertainment libraries etc.

All this at a price point, that will likely be within $150 of the Wii by mid generation. Remember the 360 premium is already within $100 of the Wii now. Add in DVR functionality, IPTV, Netflix etc, and it's not going to get less complelling... Remember people have paid more than $100 for DVR functionality alone.

Some Wii fans need to enjoy what's happening now, but World domination takes time. This generation will change more from beginning to end than any other previously in terms of what a console can offer. Nintendo has proven itself so far, but it's not over by any stretch of the imagination.

That's my take. :)

[Johan]

I object to your definition of "Hardcore." Hardcore =/= Shooters, racers, and sports games in my mind. Nor does it mean Mature rated games. Harcore gamers are people that follow game industry news, have a long history of playing games, and regularly play games for hours on end. Using that definition, all three consoles appeal to hardcore gamers. The distinction between the Wii and the PS3/360 is not between casual/hardcore, it's between different game genres. The Wii has a different genre focus than the other systems, but it has as many, if not more, solid offerings for hardcore players as the PS3, they're just in different genres.

Wow...I agree with that. You must be wrong! :D

This generation will change more from beginning to end than any other previously in terms of what a console can offer. Nintendo has proven itself so far, but it's not over by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with that, too! You must be wrong as well! :D

[Ink Asylum]

It has to do with the Wii offering a lower price point console to people who weren't hardcore in the first place. If they buy a Wii and are hardcore, they will buy a PS3/360 as soon as they can afford it. The 360/PS3 are the hardcore console platforms.

If you have a 360 you don't really need a PS3 that much, and vice versa. Especially not for the cost that buying both systems entails. Yet Nintendo can easily sell the Wii to a PS3 or 360 owner because it offers an experience you just can't get with any other system.

In that situation, Nintendo is clearly the superior console. More hardcore gamers are going to go the Wii60 or PSWii route than PS360.

Why do we need more than one console that run pretty much the same exact games? Hell, I'd prefer that one console did it all. If I'm a "hardcore" gamer I want to be able to play as diverse a selection of games as I can while spending the least money.

The Wii is expanding the market, but some Nintendo fans are getting a little caught up in World domination. They have yet to face the sub $249 price points and the bulk of the media hub features with IPTV, Netflix integration, DVR capabilities, Sony's music, entertainment libraries etc.

Once 360 or PS3 pricing starts to actually make people think twice about buying a Wii over one of the other two systems, watch the Wii drop to $150-200. And they'll probably still be making money off hardware, while Microsoft and Sony continue to bleed with every sale.

All this at a price point, that will likely be within $150 of the Wii by mid generation. Remember the 360 premium is already within $100 of the Wii now. Add in DVR functionality, IPTV, Netflix etc, and it's not going to get less complelling... Remember people have paid more than $100 for DVR functionality alone.

Some Wii fans need to enjoy what's happening now, but World domination takes time. This generation will change more from beginning to end than any other previously in terms of what a console can offer. Nintendo has proven itself so far, but it's not over by any stretch of the imagination.

I think you overestimate the value of all these extra multimedia features when it comes to the average game buyer's purchase choice. Sony in particular keeps putting their eggs in this basket. They've tried it with every version of Playstation so far, adding in more and more media formats and features and striving to become the media center of the average American household. They even tried it with the PSP and UMD movies. Look at how long it took Sony's marketing division to actually shift focus to games in their PS3 ads. Microsoft is following in their footsteps.

If they pull it off some day, great, more power to them, but so far it hasn't worked. People buy game consoles primarily to play games, and have separate devices for their DVDs, On Demand, Music, etc. It's a very small niche market that actually chooses a game system because of all the mulitmedia capabilities. For the rest of the population, they just see a system with a price bloated because a big corporation is trying to shoehorn features in.

The Wii's spectacular success proves that most customers buy a game system to play games.

[Jack B]

If you have a 360 you don't really need a PS3 that much, and vice versa. Especially not for the cost that buying both systems entails. Yet Nintendo can easily sell the Wii to a PS3 or 360 owner because it offers an experience you just can't get with any other system.

In that situation, Nintendo is clearly the superior console. More hardcore gamers are going to go the Wii60 or PSWii route than PS360.

Why do we need more than one console that run pretty much the same exact games? Hell, I'd prefer that one console did it all. If I'm a "hardcore" gamer I want to be able to play as diverse a selection of games as I can while spending the least money.

The argument before has been made about whether we need 2 hardcore consoles. Maybe we don't, but if you add the monthly sales of the PS3 and 360 together it doesn't really support the Hardcore market is dying comments.

Once 360 or PS3 pricing starts to actually make people think twice about buying a Wii over one of the other two systems, watch the Wii drop to $150-200. And they'll probably still be making money off hardware, while Microsoft and Sony continue to bleed with every sale.

Economics tells us there is typically a "I won't spend more than.." amount for items. It's a threshold. The PS3 and 360 will drop under that threshold. The Wii lowering it's price helps, but not as much relative to the PS3/360. You're not factoring that into the equation. Once all 3 are below the threshold for most customers the gap won't be $350. It will be $50 or $100 and the added features of the PS3/360 will start to look more compelling not less.

Yes, the Wii will still be making money off the hardware, but so will the 360. The 360 had about a $300 advantage in costs on the PS3. The 360 hardware is making money right now. The 360 just posted a profitable quarter and will likely post a 2nd in a row. They've crossed over the hump. Your facts are dated.

I think you overestimate the value of all these extra multimedia features when it comes to the average game buyer's purchase choice. Sony in particular keeps putting their eggs in this basket. They've tried it with every version of Playstation so far, adding in more and more media formats and features and striving to become the media center of the average American household. They even tried it with the PSP and UMD movies. Look at how long it took Sony's marketing division to actually shift focus to games in their PS3 ads. Microsoft is following in their footsteps.

If they pull it off some day, great, more power to them, but so far it hasn't worked. People buy game consoles primarily to play games, and have separate devices for their DVDs, On Demand, Music, etc. It's a very small niche market that actually chooses a game system because of all the mulitmedia capabilities. For the rest of the population, they just see a system with a price bloated because a big corporation is trying to shoehorn features in.

The Wii's spectacular success proves that most customers buy a game system to play games.

Don't compare the PSP to what is happening in the living room. There are big big big dollars in the living room connected to the TV. I currently pay about $165 a month for my cable setup.

$95 digital cable with extra crap.
$30 for 2 HD receivers
$20 for 2 DVR's
$10 for a 3rd standard receiver.
$10 in a bunch of taxes and crap.

That's about $1,980 a year. Now let's throw in the movies I rent and the $15 a month I spend on the Zune and you should quickly realize the Wii won't get one nickle of that pie.

People buy Tivo's (DVR's). People buy cable (IPTV). People buy movies (Netflix, Blockbuster). People buy music (iTunes). There is a ton of money in those markets. Do you think, Comcast, Time Warner, British Telecom, AT&T, Netflix are talking to Nintendo right now? Nope.

You need to have vision. Microsoft and Sony execs are looking at more than games. The people that don't get it will get it later on in this generation. The Wii just doesn't have options to compete in the living room except for coming out with more games. The 360 already sells more games, how will the Wii generate more revenue of entertainment? They won't.

Look at the big big picture. I know it's hard right now and there is a ton of euphoria among Wii owners, but many may very well look foolish with their world domination theories in the next 12 to 18 months.

[Ink Asylum]

The argument before has been made about whether we need 2 hardcore consoles. Maybe we don't, but if you add the monthly sales of the PS3 and 360 together it doesn't really support the Hardcore market is dying comments.

I never said the hardcore market is dying. I said that it's smarter to release a console that provides a different experience than one that does what the 360 already does. PS3 is learning that it's hard to compete if you can't distinguish yourself enough from the competition. The Wii is reaping the rewards of being different.

Economics tells us there is typically a "I won't spend more than.." amount for items. It's a threshold. The PS3 and 360 will drop under that threshold. The Wii lowering it's price helps, but not as much relative to the PS3/360. You're not factoring that into the equation. Once all 3 are below the threshold for most customers the gap won't be $350. It will be $50 or $100 and the added features of the PS3/360 will start to look more compelling not less.

Sure, but by that time they'll have a whole lot of catching up to do. By the time they get to that point most of the people who put off buying the 360 or PS3 will already have a Wii. I don't see the Wii losing its appeal in the eyes of the regular consumer even if they were all priced the same. Hell, people are paying upwards of $400-500 for a Wii whether that's because of a bundle or because they're forced to buy it off ebay. There's a fun value for the average consumer in the Wii that is worth some pretty high prices and that has yet to be matched by the PS3/360.

Yes, the Wii will still be making money off the hardware, but so will the 360. The 360 had about a $300 advantage in costs on the PS3. The 360 hardware is making money right now. The 360 just posted a profitable quarter and will likely post a 2nd in a row. They've crossed over the hump. Your facts are dated.

Congratulations to the 360. It took them two years to become profitable when the Wii was profitable out of the gate. Of course, if they drop the cost of the console again that goes away...

You need to have vision. Microsoft and Sony execs are looking at more than games. The people that don't get it will get it later on in this generation. The Wii just doesn't have options to compete in the living room except for coming out with more games. The 360 already sells more games, how will the Wii generate more revenue of entertainment? They won't.

Look at the big big picture. I know it's hard right now and there is a ton of euphoria among Wii owners, but many may very well look foolish with their world domination theories in the next 12 to 18 months.

Nintendo is looking at the big picture. They saw a huge group of consumers that would never buy a console, even if that console played their movies, music, tv shows, and cooked their dinner. They released a system that appealed to people who usually would never play games, and they succeeded beyond all predictions, even Nintendo's.

I admire what Sony and Microsoft are trying to do, turn the gaming console into a multimedia center. It's a noble goal. I just don't see it happening this generation. Sure, some people will use it that way, but the majority won't. Maybe in five to ten years they'll finally make that breakthrough, but it didn't work for the PS1, it didn't work for the PS2/Xbox. The perception that consoles can be for more than games is spreading, but slowly.

Sony and Microsoft are just aiming at too small a consumer group. Sure, they succeed spectacularly in that group, but Nintendo's appeal is much broader. You could make the 360 $100 and add in all the multimedia features you want, and that mom, girlfriend, or grandparent is still going to buy the Wii, because it's easy to play and damn fun.

A quick look at the comparative numbers on Wikipedia shows that the Wii has possibly surpassed the 360 in worldwide sales, despite releasing a year later. If that's true, it's remarkable.

[Jack B]

I never said the hardcore market is dying. I said that it's smarter to release a console that provides a different experience than one that does what the 360 already does. PS3 is learning that it's hard to compete if you can't distinguish yourself enough from the competition. The Wii is reaping the rewards of being different.

My original post in this thread was in response to the 360/PS3 losing the hardcore market. The hardcore market is fine. Nintendo's expanded the market. Look at the industry growth numbers.

Sure, but by that time they'll have a whole lot of catching up to do. By the time they get to that point most of the people who put off buying the 360 or PS3 will already have a Wii. I don't see the Wii losing its appeal in the eyes of the regular consumer even if they were all priced the same. Hell, people are paying upwards of $400-500 for a Wii whether that's because of a bundle or because they're forced to buy it off ebay. There's a fun value for the average consumer in the Wii that is worth some pretty high prices and that has yet to be matched by the PS3/360.

Lately, yes. Things don't stay the same. No console generation will change more from beginning to end than this one. Stay tuned.

Congratulations to the 360. It took them two years to become profitable when the Wii was profitable out of the gate.

Glad you corrected yourself and acknowledge the 360 is making money. I never said the Wii wasn't profitable.

Of course, if they drop the cost of the console again that goes away...

Huh? You do know the PS3 and 360 each have over 1,000 components. Each of those components become less expensive every few months. Not sure why this needs explaining, but the cost to manufacturef both the 360 and PS3 keeping dropping.

Nintendo is looking at the big picture. They saw a huge group of consumers that would never buy a console, even if that console played their movies, music, tv shows, and cooked their dinner. They released a system that appealed to people who usually would never play games, and they succeeded beyond all predictions, even Nintendo's.

That's not the big picture. That's the big picture for making money in the simple/casual games market. The big picture goes beyond games. Many people laugh now, but they won't be laughing in 12-18 months. Did I mention the big picture of the size of the markets AT&T, British Telecom, PacBell, Comcast, Time Warner look at? Nintendo's a gnat on their ass.

I admire what Sony and Microsoft are trying to do, turn the gaming console into a multimedia center. It's a noble goal. I just don't see it happening this generation. Sure, some people will use it that way, but the majority won't. Maybe in five to ten years they'll finally make that breakthrough, but it didn't work for the PS1, it didn't work for the PS2/Xbox. The perception that consoles can be for more than games is spreading, but slowly.

They don't need the majority. There are 600 million plus people in Europe and North America alone. There are probably 1 billion cable/satellite setup boxes in those homes. They don't need everyone to buy one, just a small piece of that pie expands console revenues by a ton. And that's just cable/DVR revenues. Add in movie rental revenues.

Sony and Microsoft are just aiming at too small a consumer group. Sure, they succeed spectacularly in that group, but Nintendo's appeal is much broader. You could make the 360 $100 and add in all the multimedia features you want, and that mom, girlfriend, or grandparent is still going to buy the Wii, because it's easy to play and damn fun.

Aiming at 1 billion is too small? :confused: This is not the PSP. They are going after the living room. Big big big difference.

Nintendo was opportunistic and it's paid off. They'll be fine, but they aren't looking at the big picture like Sony, Microsoft are... They bowed out and decided to let them have it and stick to their own market. Easy choice if your competing against Microsoft and Sony. They would have lost in that bigger arena.

[Ink Asylum]

Lately, yes. Things don't stay the same. No console generation will change more from beginning to end than this one. Stay tuned.

Will do. Personally, though, I'd rather be in Nintendo's position right now than Sony's. I prefer a profitable present to a potentially profitable future. It's just as likely that Nintendo maintains or grows their leads over the next few years.

Huh? You do know the PS3 and 360 each have over 1,000 components. Each of those components become less expensive every few months. Not sure why this needs explaining, but the cost to manufacturef both the 360 and PS3 keeping dropping.

I never said that wasn't true, but they are limited by those costs, and have to walk a fine line between profitable and marketable. Nintendo still has a huge buffer in that regard.

That's not the big picture. That's the big picture for making money in the simple/casual games market. The big picture goes beyond games. Many people laugh now, but they won't be laughing in 12-18 months. Did I mention the big picture of the size of the markets AT&T, British Telecom, PacBell, Comcast, Time Warner look at? Nintendo's a gnat on their ass.

They don't need the majority. There are 600 million plus people in Europe and North America alone. There are probably 1 billion cable/satellite setup boxes in those homes. They don't need everyone to buy one, just a small piece of that pie expands console revenues by a ton. And that's just cable/DVR revenues. Add in movie rental revenues.

Aiming at 1 billion is too small? :confused: This is not the PSP. They are going after the living room. Big big big difference.

Nintendo was opportunistic and it's paid off. They'll be fine, but they aren't looking at the big picture like Sony, Microsoft are... They bowed out and decided to let them have it and stick to their own market. Easy choice if your competing against Microsoft and Sony. They would have lost in that bigger arena.

Turning mothers, grandparents, and the elusive female market into regular gamers isn't the big picture? The Wii is the biggest boon for the gaming industry in years. People who never would've looked twice at a gaming console are snapping it up. A sizable portion of these people that are cutting their teeth on Wii Sports will move on to more complicated and involving games, in due time. Without the Wii and the DS the gaming market would've remained stuck in the 18-40 year old male stereotype.

Nintendo is trying to make everyone want to buy a game system. Sony and Microsoft are trying to do that, too. They're trying to do it by making their game consoles into media consoles. Nintendo is trying to do it by making their system affordable and approachable for gamers and non-gamers alike. So far, Nintendo's method is working better.

The PS3 and 360 don't NEED all those multimedia features to get the dollars of the 18-40 year old males. They would buy a purely game-playing machine because of the games that are available, and would appreciate all the money that would save them. Sony and Microsoft are adding all those features to expand their market to non-gamers and as an arms race between the PS3/360.

Sony and Microsoft are trying to make consoles that can do it all. That's admirable. The problem with that strategy is that people don't want to pay for features they're not going to use, and that includes playing games. If you're not already a gamer and you're looking for a media player or a DVR machine, you're not going to look at the PS3 or 360. Just like they're not going to buy an iPhone if they're not going to use it to make phone calls.

If you're trying to sell the public your mega-media-console that primarily plays games, you need your customers to be gamers. Yet Sony and Microsoft haven't done anything to turn those people into gamers. They've stuck with the over-complicated controller and video games that appeal to young males. Nintendo is actually converting the masses. In the end, they're probably doing more to help Sony and Microsoft in that regard. If mom or grandma is ever going to buy a 360 it's probably because they had a Wii first and now play games regularly.

That's the big picture.

[Kamalot]

As a gamer, I prefer the big picture that is clearly focused on gaming as opposed to the bigger picture that considers gaming a side hobby equal with watching movies or downloading stuff.

For me, games come first. If one company can get more customers thinking about games, FIRST, and not games as an afterthought, then I support their efforts.

[Ink Asylum]

As a gamer, I prefer the big picture that is clearly focused on gaming as opposed to the bigger picture that considers gaming a side hobby equal with watching movies or downloading stuff.

For me, games come first. If one company can get more customers thinking about games, FIRST, and not games as an afterthought, then I support their efforts.

Exactly my point. It's nice that Sony and Microsoft are trying to create these multimedia behemoths, but personally, I would rather buy one machine for games, one for movies, one for music, and one for TV. This gives me more choice, makes the individual devices of a higher and more up to date technology, and makes upgrading easier. I would rather have four devices that each perform their chosen task spectacularly, than one device that does everything ok.

So I buy a PS3 but in three years there are better Blu-ray players out there. So I either stick with my subpar player and wait for the PS4, or buy the better Blu-ray player and never play movies on my PS4 anymore.

I know that not every customer is like me, but I think that most are.

[Jack B]

Will do. Personally, though, I'd rather be in Nintendo's position right now than Sony's. I prefer a profitable present to a potentially profitable future. It's just as likely that Nintendo maintains or grows their leads over the next few years.

I could agree Nintendo's in a better position than Sony. Sony's manufacturing costs are so high they are in a tough position. They need Blu-Ray and/or their media hub stuff to take off for eventual success this generation.

Nintendo is almost guaranteed success this generation by their amazing start. They are printing money with very very low costs, no marketing to speak of etc.

I never said that wasn't true, but they are limited by those costs, and have to walk a fine line between profitable and marketable. Nintendo still has a huge buffer in that regard.

Agreed. Nintendo has a terrific manufacturing cost situation. Printing money.... :)

Turning mothers, grandparents, and the elusive female market into regular gamers isn't the big picture?

There are lot's of "pictures" so to speak and markets merge. Ask the phone companies if they still make their money off of phone calls? Some pictures/markets are bigger than others. Gaming wise, Nintendo is doing a terrific job, but that's just a part of the puzzle. This year it's most of it, but not for long.

The Wii is the biggest boon for the gaming industry in years. People who never would've looked twice at a gaming console are snapping it up. A sizable portion of these people that are cutting their teeth on Wii Sports will move on to more complicated and involving games, in due time. Without the Wii and the DS the gaming market would've remained stuck in the 18-40 year old male stereotype.

No question. The Wii is the farm system for the industry. In a way it's good for everyone.

Nintendo is trying to make everyone want to buy a game system. Sony and Microsoft are trying to do that, too. They're trying to do it by making their game consoles into media consoles. Nintendo is trying to do it by making their system affordable and approachable for gamers and non-gamers alike. So far, Nintendo's method is working better.

Yep, and both strategies will continue to increase the market. Nintendo's strategy is simplier and has taken less time. The 360/PS3's strategy requires a lot of technology development beyond just the hardware. Additionally, all the entertainment licensing, Netflix, Directv, IPTV etc. All kinds of stuff happening, that Nintendo isn't working on. Nintendo kept it simple. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not really BIG picture.

The PS3 and 360 don't NEED all those multimedia features to get the dollars of the 18-40 year old males. They would buy a purely game-playing machine because of the games that are available, and would appreciate all the money that would save them. Sony and Microsoft are adding all those features to expand their market to non-gamers and as an arms race between the PS3/360.

Yep. The 360 is the happy medium, but both will lower prices and add functionality for the next 3-4 years. Nintendo can add some peripherals, but other than new SKU's with a hard drive etc, they just aren't in the media hub/DVR HD Dolby 5.1 business.

Sony and Microsoft are trying to make consoles that can do it all. That's admirable. The problem with that strategy is that people don't want to pay for features they're not going to use, and that includes playing games. If you're not already a gamer and you're looking for a media player or a DVR machine, you're not going to look at the PS3 or 360. Just like they're not going to buy an iPhone if they're not going to use it to make phone calls.

In many cases true, but the size of the market is massive. 1 billion cable/satellite setup boxes, many with DVR funcionality? They don't need 1 billion units sold to be successful. People spend way more money on those things, than on video games. Nintendo won't expand the market to compete with those numbers. Only media hubs have a chance.

If you're trying to sell the public your mega-media-console that primarily plays games, you need your customers to be gamers. Yet Sony and Microsoft haven't done anything to turn those people into gamers. They've stuck with the over-complicated controller and video games that appeal to young males. Nintendo is actually converting the masses. In the end, they're probably doing more to help Sony and Microsoft in that regard. If mom or grandma is ever going to buy a 360 it's probably because they had a Wii first and now play games regularly.

That's the big picture.

Already agreed Nintendo will help everyone, but it's not the big picture. It's only a part of the picture. Look at the phone companies. It's not about the telephone anymore.

Look at the typewriter companies. Did they see word processors and computers with printers as their competition. Eventually. Nintendo fans don't see it yet. Nintendo probably does, but would rather print money for now and stay comfortable in their niche. They likely figured they couldn't win at the other game.

[Ink Asylum]

Already agreed Nintendo will help everyone, but it's not the big picture. It's only a part of the picture. Look at the phone companies. It's not about the telephone anymore.

Look at the typewriter companies. Did they see word processors and computers with printers as their competition. Eventually. Nintendo fans don't see it yet. Nintendo probably does, but would rather print money for now and stay comfortable in their niche. They likely figured they couldn't win at the other game.

So, like Kamalot said, the direction you're advocating brings us to mega-media-boxes wherein games are only a part of the focus, perhaps not even the biggest one. While that might be great for Microsoft and Sony, it's not good for gamers.

Nintendo didn't abandon the multimedia market, they never wanted to compete there in the first place. The Gamecube certainly never tried playing music or movies, neither does the Wii. Their primary focus has always been making games and making gaming appeal to more people. The incredible success of the Wii and the DS prove that there is plenty of money to be made with pure gaming devices. I don't see why that would change in the coming years.

Your phone and typewriter analogies are flawed. Media like games, movies, tv shows, and music are entirely different beasts. Each one is experienced in different ways and benefits from different types of hardware. There will always, always be a large market for devices that exclusively play one type of media. Why? Because if you want to make a device that does something the best but also be as cheap as possible, you need to cut away any components that do not serve the primary goal. If don't watch TV or play games and just want to watch DVDs, I'm going to buy a DVD player, not an all-in-one unit.

There's also the problem of console exclusivity. As long as more than one company is making your mega-media console, and there are still exclusive games, game-only systems will still sell very well. Customers are going to balk at having to buy two competing systems that all cost more than they should because you want to be able to play all games.

It's going to take a long, long time until you have one box in your living room that plays absolutely every type of media at highest quality while still being affordable. Longer than this gaming generation, and probably longer than the next. As long as there are console exclusives and different media formats, there will always be a big market for singular-purpose devices.

[Johan]

Wall of text! My eyes! They bleed! (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/oedipus/oedipussmall.gif)

Oedipus rocks!

[Jack B]

So, like Kamalot said, the direction you're advocating brings us to mega-media-boxes wherein games are only a part of the focus, perhaps not even the biggest one. While that might be great for Microsoft and Sony, it's not good for gamers.

You're making an assumption it's not good for gamers. Business will sell where the money is. The gaming industry is seeing 50% growth rates. Ubisoft, Epic etc, will not stop selling games, because a 360 or PS3 also supports movie downloads, DVR functionality and IPTV.

People haven't stopped buying cell phones because they have cameras or text capabilities or internet browsing.

Nintendo didn't abandon the multimedia market, they never wanted to compete there in the first place.

We all know they didn't abandon it, they left it to Sony and Microsoft to develop. Not sure what your point is here.

The Gamecube certainly never tried playing music or movies, neither does the Wii. Their primary focus has always been making games and making gaming appeal to more people. The incredible success of the Wii and the DS prove that there is plenty of money to be made with pure gaming devices. I don't see why that would change in the coming years.

Yeah, so. There is money to be made in gaming devices. There is more to be made in cable/satellite/dvr's and digital downloads. Add them together with games and you have an even bigger market and will likely expose gaming to people buying the other features as well. Cell phone games are probably played by a number of people who wouldn't normally play games. More exposure.

Your phone and typewriter analogies are flawed. Media like games, movies, tv shows, and music are entirely different beasts. Each one is experienced in different ways and benefits from different types of hardware. There will always, always be a large market for devices that exclusively play one type of media. Why? Because if you want to make a device that does something the best but also be as cheap as possible, you need to cut away any components that do not serve the primary goal. If don't watch TV or play games and just want to watch DVDs, I'm going to buy a DVD player, not an all-in-one unit.

It's not flawed at all. Markets change over time. People buy fax, scanners, printers all in one now. In the mid 80's it was scanners only. Since they are all related and a scanner can use the some of the same technology (ie CCD elements) it starts to make sense to include them in one unit. Go check Best Buy for how many combo units exist.

Same thing with DVR's and Cable Set-Top boxes. What are they inside? A setup box is a computer with video out. A 360/PS3 is essentially a computer with a video out. A DVR is a set-top box with a hard disk and MPEG compression board/software. A 360/PS3 has a hard drive is a computer and you can add the needed software.

Microsoft and Sony have a vision I can see. You can't. Some can see it. Some can't. Some saw the combo faxes. Some didn't. Some saw typewriters being replaced with word processors and computers with printers. Some never saw it coming. Some saw cable coming with hard drives. Some wondered why anyone would need 150 channels. Some didn't.

There's also the problem of console exclusivity. As long as more than one company is making your mega-media console, and there are still exclusive games, game-only systems will still sell very well. Customers are going to balk at having to buy two competing systems that all cost more than they should because you want to be able to play all games.

Bottom line is the cost vs value. Give people what they want at a price they can afford and they'll buy it. Not sure why you're convinced that's impossible. I already showed early where I spend over $2,000 per year ($10,000 in a console's lifetime) on cable charges alone. You still don't believe they can build something as an alternative to $10,000 worth of entertainment purchases? I do. I'll wait to see the cost benefit analysis before deciding.

It's going to take a long, long time until you have one box in your living room that plays absolutely every type of media at highest quality while still being affordable. Longer than this gaming generation, and probably longer than the next. As long as there are console exclusives and different media formats, there will always be a big market for singular-purpose devices.

I disagree. It was as recent as last year before the launch of the 360 Movie Marketplace, that many people laughed at the idea it could be remotely successfull. Since then they've increased the content by 4X from 500 hours to over 2,000 hours. I'm also at the point, I can start watching an HD movie in 20-40 minutes when people said it would take years and years for bandwidth to be fast enough.

Moore's law and the accelerating change of technology happens much quicker than many people can imagine. Visionaries take advantage. Companies are developing products and markets long before the average person has any idea it's about to happen.

[BlackPete]

My wheelmouse just broke ;)

Going back to one of Jack's comments about how devs should design a hardware system. I presume that he means that if they did it, then they'd discover just how expensive it was. I wonder if it occurred to him that this argument would hold more water if the PS3 was the cheapest console?

[Ink Asylum]

You're making an assumption it's not good for gamers. Business will sell where the money is. The gaming industry is seeing 50% growth rates. Ubisoft, Epic etc, will not stop selling games, because a 360 or PS3 also supports movie downloads, DVR functionality and IPTV.

They will, though, make less money if people don't buy that console because the extra features make it too expensive or undesirable in the consumer's eyes. That's exactly why the PS3 is having problems right now. If you're a game developer you want as many consoles as possible out there. So you want consoles to be as cheap as possible. Look at how companies are telling Sony their console should be cheaper (Hey! Look at what thread we're in!).

Maybe Sony and Microsoft are right, and more features will make people buy more consoles. So far, though, they are wrong, and people prefer the cheaper console with less features. Perhaps that will change, but they're not there yet.

If a product has features that enough customers don't want or need or raise the price or are done better by competing solo-purpose items that will reduce sales of the device.

People haven't stopped buying cell phones because they have cameras or text capabilities or internet browsing.

And there are still phones you can buy without those features. As I said, there will always be a market for devices that do one thing well to the exclusion of all others. What I don't want, and what many people don't want, is to have the mega-media-console be the ONLY option. That's great for Sony and Microsoft, but bad for consumers that just want to play games.

We all know they didn't abandon it, they left it to Sony and Microsoft to develop. Not sure what your point is here.

My point is that there is a difference between abandoning a field and never entering the race to begin with. Sega abandoned console production. Nintendo has not. Nintendo has not abandoned media in their console, they never entered the race to begin with. Not because they thought they couldn't compete, because they felt it would take away from their primary goal, making games. If Microsoft decides to add a toaster to their next console, taking advantage of their overheating issues, and Sony doesn't, Sony hasn't abandoned the "GameToaster" market to Microsoft, they chose not to enter that field for whatever reason.

Yeah, so. There is money to be made in gaming devices. There is more to be made in cable/satellite/dvr's and digital downloads. Add them together with games and you have an even bigger market and will likely expose gaming to people buying the other features as well. Cell phone games are probably played by a number of people who wouldn't normally play games. More exposure.

Two routes to the same goal. Personally, I don't like the Trojan Horse method. It's bad for consumers. Most of them end up paying more than they should for features they didn't want in the first place. I, and most consumers, prefer the a la carte method. Pay for what you plan to use. At least Microsoft allows you to choose if you want to spend more for their HD-DVD format, whereas Sony forces it on you.

It's not flawed at all. Markets change over time. People buy fax, scanners, printers all in one now. In the mid 80's it was scanners only. Since they are all related and a scanner can use the some of the same technology (ie CCD elements) it starts to make sense to include them in one unit. Go check Best Buy for how many combo units exist.

And you can still buy solo scanners/printers/etc, too. They're usually smaller, cheaper, more streamlined, cheaper to replace, and perform their main task to a higher degree of quality. It's the loss of choice that I object to, which is the direction Sony in particular is heading towards. If Sony could add DVD playback, Blu-ray, DVR, and other features to the PS3 for free, I would not be opposed.

Microsoft and Sony have a vision I can see. You can't. Some can see it. Some can't. Some saw the combo faxes. Some didn't. Some saw typewriters being replaced with word processors and computers with printers. Some never saw it coming. Some saw cable coming with hard drives. Some wondered why anyone would need 150 channels. Some didn't.

I can see the vision fine, I just don't like it. Less choice and forced bundling of products and services is good for corporations but bad for consumers.

Bottom line is the cost vs value. Give people what they want at a price they can afford and they'll buy it. Not sure why you're convinced that's impossible. I already showed early where I spend over $2,000 per year ($10,000 in a console's lifetime) on cable charges alone. You still don't believe they can build something as an alternative to $10,000 worth of entertainment purchases? I do. I'll wait to see the cost benefit analysis before deciding.

Some people, though, wouldn't spend that $2,000-10,000 in the first place, because they don't want or need any of those services. So to them, the PS3 or 360 is not a bargain, it's more money for crap they don't need.

Once again, if you're going to take away my choice and make me spend more money for things I never would have bought in the first place, you can take your vision and stuff it up your corporate ass. That "you" is Sony, not you JackB. :)

Sure, if you could bundle every kitchen appliance into one, it would sure save money, production time, space, etc. It would be truly visionary. Unless all you're looking for is a toaster.

All-in-one products are great, but they have a lot of downsides. More choice is always the better option.

[Jack B]

Ink Asylum, I think we're starting to reach some common ground. I like choice too and with Nintendo we have some choice. Just like the simple phones. The complex phones now dominate the market and as much as I bitch about them, I'm not going back to the phone I had 3 years ago. I just want the phone I have now to work better.

I believe Sony reached too far by adding Blu-Ray and I'd say that situation supports your opinion much more so than the 360.

Microsoft is $200 or more cheaper to build and is consistently lowering the price as a result all the while adding new features. Remember, the DVR, IPTV, Netflix, Video Marketplace, Zune Integration features are all software or licensing based. None of those ups the hardware costs (other than the need for a larger hard drive if you chose it... arcade doesn't have it at all...) and will be options.

The 360 will shortly be right in line with the cost of traditional consoles, especially considering inflated dollars, but with more features than any console has every dreamt of... Those features will be options.

Microsoft is betting many people will take advantage of those new options/services. If they're right, they'll have hit the mother lode.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink Asylum, I think we're starting to reach some common ground. I like choice too and with Nintendo we have some choice. Just like the simple phones. The complex phones now dominate the market and as much as I bitch about them, I'm not going back to the phone I had 3 years ago. I just want the phone I have now to work better.

I believe Sony reached too far by adding Blu-Ray and I'd say that situation supports your opinion much more so than the 360.

Microsoft is $200 or more cheaper to build and is consistently lowering the price as a result all the while adding new features. Remember, the DVR, IPTV, Netflix, Video Marketplace, Zune Integration features are all software or licensing based. None of those ups the hardware costs (other than the need for a larger hard drive if you chose it... arcade doesn't have it at all...) and will be options.

The 360 will shortly be right in line with the cost of traditional consoles, especially considering inflated dollars, but with more features than any console has every dreamt of... Those features will be options.

Microsoft is betting many people will take advantage of those new options/services. If they're right, they'll have hit the mother lode.

No one is ever going to argue that more features that cost nothing and do not impede a device's primary function are bad. Those are always good. Making things more efficient, more advanced, and more affordable is always preferable. However, if you cannot add those features without either raising the cost, reducing the quality, or making it too complicated, and then refuse to release simpler items and prevent others from doing so, you are not serving your customers.

Game consoles are a tricky category, because of all the exclusives. They are not open platforms. If someone just wants to play Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank, they're going to have to shell out hundreds of dollars for things they do not want or need. That's not a company serving a community, that's a monopoly taking advantage of customer's desires to make an extra buck.

I will always support a company's right to provide combination products, because if you do want all those services you will save money with that purchase. However, I will never support those products completely replacing solo-function devices that are cheaper and better at what they do. Sony and Microsoft would love if everyone were compelled to buy their most expensive SKUs with all the bells and whistles, but they know they can't get away with it, thankfully. I do not trust them to make the best choices for consumers.

[Chameleo]

i think the microsoft games division is turning a profit - not the hardware itself....

i think MS is still taking a loss on each console sold.

[Jack B]

i think the microsoft games division is turning a profit - not the hardware itself....

i think MS is still taking a loss on each console sold.

I'd have to dig it up, but I believe started making about a $75 profit about 6 months ago. Some of that's been eaten up with the latest price cuts, but I'm pretty sure they are now generating profit on the hardware.

EDIT: I dug up the following from iSuppli. It shows an estimated $75 hardware gross profit one year ago for the 360. There are other factors like marketing, sales, margin to distribution etc, but this is over 1 year old. With over 1,300 components the cost would be less today as this is 12 months old.

This is one factor, that is very important for Microsoft. Sony has been helped tremendously by PS2 sales. It's been balancing out the losses of the PS3, but that won't last forever. PS2 sales are dropping and those important profits are going away.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q247/JackB99/iSupply.gif

[Chameleo]

ah ok. i did some digging too and all i found was http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38391&highlight=microsoft+profit ... which doesnt say anything about what they're making on each console sold...

other threads dug up with the same search words show that MS is still really struggling to make money. and while they just started making money for the first time since the orignal xbox launched, they have a long way to go to make back everything they've invested so far. I think the xbox name as a whole is in the red more than 4 billion dollars.


though some investors say the amount of debt you have adds value to your company, so who knows, 4 billion in the red could be a good thing.

edit: heres one more link i came across but don't have anything to say about: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/bach-xbox-business-profitable-next-year/70371/?biz=1

[Jack B]

ah ok. i did some digging too and all i found was http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38391&highlight=microsoft+profit ... which doesnt say anything about what they're making on each console sold...

other threads dug up with the same search words show that MS is still really struggling to make money. and while they just started making money for the first time since the orignal xbox launched, they have a long way to go to make back everything they've invested so far. I think the xbox name as a whole is in the red more than 4 billion dollars.


though some investors say the amount of debt you have adds value to your company, so who knows, 4 billion in the red could be a good thing.

edit: heres one more link i came across but don't have anything to say about: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/bach-xbox-business-profitable-next-year/70371/?biz=1

I also found this from iSuppli from about 10 months ago (February 05, 2007)

The research firm iSuppli estimated that the total bill-of-material (BOM) cost of the Premium Xbox 360 is down to about $323 from $525 at launch, which would significantly help Microsoft's margins.

So, in one year they estimate the raw cost of a 360 dropped about $200. They sold even more in the year since, so although I doubt it dropped another $200 it could easily have dropped $100 more or so down into the $220 range. They just started producing the 65nm chips. Additionally, with 1,300 components it's just naturally going to see monthly drops in cost.

The 360 is in a terrific spot cost wise. They can match Sony price drop for price drop very easily. Sony is caught in a tough spot. Too big a price drop just canabablizes the PS2 cash cow sales they have. To little and they risk losing too much market share... It's always been a tough spot and doesn't look to get too much easier.

I believe Microsoft will adjust prices to stay ahead. If 360 software doesn't sell units, they'll lower the price. If the PS3 gets too close they'll lower price. They're in the cat bird's seat, IMO. :)

[Ink Asylum]

other threads dug up with the same search words show that MS is still really struggling to make money. and while they just started making money for the first time since the orignal xbox launched, they have a long way to go to make back everything they've invested so far. I think the xbox name as a whole is in the red more than 4 billion dollars.

I'd believe that.

It all comes back to what Sony and Microsoft's goals are, compared to Nintendo.

With the Wii and DS, Nintendo proves their financial goals revolve around making solid games and solid systems.

Microsoft and Sony are using their consoles as Trojan Horses, to get their huge corporate asses planted in your entertainment center, so that all of your media plays on an Xbox360 or the PS3 (or the 720 or PS4). They're willing to soak up huge losses in the short term to reap potentially huge windfalls in the future. Is there anything particularly bad about that? Not really, if you're a corporation. That's just the way they do business, trying to expand their markets by tying their customers to their particular product line. It's not so nice for customers, though. They go in for a penny then further in for a pound, until it's just easier to deal with just one company's products, even if they are inferior.

Again, it's business, and no one is forced into that situation. I recognize what they're trying to do, but that doesn't mean it's respectable. It's not even that visionary, either. Corporations have been doing it for decades. Microsoft's been trying to do the same damn thing with Windows, they just saw a new market they could exploit. What geniuses!

Personally, I hope they fail, and fail badly. We don't need a living room version of Windows, tying all our multimedia into one box, riddled with proprietary formats, and stifling competition and innovation.

[Jack B]

......

Again, it's business, and no one is forced into that situation. I recognize what they're trying to do, but that doesn't mean it's respectable. It's not even that visionary, either. Corporations have been doing it for decades. Microsoft's been trying to do the same damn thing with Windows, they just saw a new market they could exploit. What geniuses!

Personally, I hope they fail, and fail badly. We don't need a living room version of Windows, tying all our multimedia into one box, riddled with proprietary formats, and stifling competition and innovation.

Wow! Why all the Microsoft hate, but none for the Nintendo. I haven't had any Nintendo hate, but now your true colors are starting to show.

The Wii has the highest profit per console this generation, so if you're talking greed, then Nintendo has more of it than either Sony or Microsoft.

And I can't believe you hammer them on not being visionary when all the Wii really did was take motion controller technology that been around for over ten years and repackage it in an under powered box they sell for a huge profit.

This is one of my problems with some Nintendo fans. They give Nintendo a free pass like it's a not for profit company. They aren't visionary. They're the least cutting edge with the highest profit.

They saw an opening for a repackaged well marketed low cost console they could sell in a void and you want to knight them? That's embarassing. They're in it for the money. Don't kid yourself. And visionary? You can't be serious...

[bean19]

I'd believe that.

It all comes back to what Sony and Microsoft's goals are, compared to Nintendo.

With the Wii and DS, Nintendo proves their financial goals revolve around making solid games and solid systems.

Huh? The Wii is not a solid system? It's a marketing triumph to sell 5-year old technology and a new controller to people for $250, but it isn't solid. Nintendo's strength is successfully targetting non-gamers and using nostalgia and brand loyalty to successfully create fanatic gamers. Huge success. Their marketing strategy is fucking brilliant, and that is their strength - not, as you said, their "solid" games and systems.

Microsoft and Sony are using their consoles as Trojan Horses, to get their huge corporate asses planted in your entertainment center, so that all of your media plays on an Xbox360 or the PS3 (or the 720 or PS4). They're willing to soak up huge losses in the short term to reap potentially huge windfalls in the future. Is there anything particularly bad about that? Not really, if you're a corporation. That's just the way they do business, trying to expand their markets by tying their customers to their particular product line. It's not so nice for customers, though. They go in for a penny then further in for a pound, until it's just easier to deal with just one company's products, even if they are inferior.

Not really. If Microsoft somehow squeezed Sony (or vice versa) out of the home console market, then someone else would show up. They are willing to take some losses in order to make more money, but they want to make it back this generation. If Nintendo's last two consoles before the Wii had not been failures compared to their competition, then they'd be doing the same. Nintendo was positioning to survive as the small ancillary game system that appeals to a broader range of customers. No one had any idea that people would go smacktard crazy over controls that simulate real movements. . . the party will be over on that gimmick after this gen though. I wonder if they'll be competitive technologically in the next-gen or if they'll go for another marketing win?

[Chameleo]

Wow! Why all the Microsoft hate, but none for the Nintendo. I haven't had any Nintendo hate, but now your true colors are starting to show.

The Wii has the highest profit per console this generation, so if you're talking greed, then Nintendo has more of it than either Sony or Microsoft.

And I can't believe you hammer them on not being visionary when all the Wii really did was take motion controller technology that been around for over ten years and repackage it in an under powered box they sell for a huge profit.

This is one of my problems with some Nintendo fans. They give Nintendo a free pass like it's a not for profit company. They aren't visionary. They're the least cutting edge with the highest profit.

They saw an opening for a repackaged well marketed low cost console they could sell in a void and you want to knight them? That's embarassing. They're in it for the money. Don't kid yourself. And visionary? You can't be serious...

I totally understand the hate...

MS has been on our PCs for over a decade now, and almost completely monopolized the PC OS scene. People do not like monopolies for the same reason they don't like dictatorships and totalitarianisms.... they have no choice. no matter how great a product MS is offering, it bugs you that there is no choice and that they've out-muscled all the other competition to get where they are...

When i first heard they were entering the console race, my first thought was, 'you're already in my PC, stay the fuck out of my living-room'. But I gave them a chance. I did a year of xbox live, had an original xbox and a bunch of games, and kinda enjoyed it. Wasn't totally for me though.... and I got rid of it after that first year.

Just because nintendo is making a profit, does not make them greedy. It makes them a company that survives just off the sales of what they make. and all they make is games. They do not have other divisions to support their 'games' divison, like SONY or MS. What MS and SONY are doing is much more insiduous than what Nintendo is doing, even though Nintendo is making money on each box sold, they're not trying to get you hooked on a 'media center' of sorts and take over your living room. The fact that MS and SONY sell their hardware at a loss makes the actions of those companies not seem more noble, but more conniving... it all seems like a 'the first hit is free...' scenario.


ragging on nintendo for 'repackaging old tech' is pretty low and pointless. What they've done took balls... To not put out an HD system on par with the other two looked like suicide before launch. Now that it has payed off, people try to downplay it as much as possible - but the fact remains, Nintendo defeated all odds on this bet - against all common sense and popular opinion..

'they saw an opening'...!? you really think this is something obvious to console makers? that its something you can just "see" and do? ... if it was so simple, MS and SONY would've tacked it onto their systems without a second thought.... they should've; the wii would be in huge trouble then....! And what kind of cost/performance hit would the 360 or PS3 take to impliment that tech? nadda. In the grand scheme of things, since its such 'old tech' - it wouldn't cost them anything.

So don't go on about how the Wii is an 'obvious' choice that Nintendo has just 'taken advantage' of.... it is an huge deviation from the norm and something this whole community scoffed at when it was first announced.


All the scoffing has now turned to downplaying; and thats what Nintendo fans are all up in arms about. Their little machine that could - did. And thats nothing to scoff about.

[DangerousDaze]

The Wii has the highest profit per console this generation, so if you're talking greed, then Nintendo has more of it than either Sony or Microsoft.
I literally LOLLED! :D So being in business to make money is greed?! No, that's just great business. I absolutely love this argument, that console makers should somehow be charities. :)

[Ink Asylum]

Wow! Why all the Microsoft hate, but none for the Nintendo. I haven't had any Nintendo hate, but now your true colors are starting to show.

I never denied my Nintendo fandom. I do not blindly follow them, but I have enjoyed nearly every purchase I have made from them and never felt like I was getting ripped off. It's hard to say that about every company. I owned all three systems last generation. I love my PS2, it's given me some of my greatest gaming experiences. I like what I've played of the 360 so far, but I will call out poor corporate policy when I see it, and Microsoft and Sony have it in spades. You honestly cannot put Microsoft and Nintendo side by side and believe that Microsoft is the more respectable company.

Do we really have to go into all the examples of Microsoft's douchebaggery? Chameleo described it well enough. They are a company with a history of monopolistic practices, honed to a razor's edge, now applied to the gaming industry. Microsoft may have made a few good products or come up with some innovative ideas of their own, but they have also made it business policy to crush and stifle unique ideas from outside their company that effect their bottom line, to the point that they were almost forcibly broken apart by the US government. There simply is no parallel for the degree of Microsoft's heavy-handed, anti-consumer actions in Nintendo.

The Wii has the highest profit per console this generation, so if you're talking greed, then Nintendo has more of it than either Sony or Microsoft.

There is a difference between making money and being greedy. Just because a company is successful does not mean it is tricking their customers.

Nintendo makes a profit on their console and Microsoft (until recently) wasn't. This does not mean that Nintendo is greedier because they're overcharging for their console. As you keep pointing out, Microsoft is working on huge deals with other big media companies to turn the Xbox into a mega-media-console. Do you really expect that to be an open and free system, with DRM-free audio/video/games and support for third party applications and formats? Not likely. Microsoft's goal is to dominate the market and leech as much money as possible off consumers, not by providing the superior product, but by throwing their weight around, stifling competition, and locking consumers into their suite of products. That's greed.

Nintendo has never tried, or desired to try, anything even remotely close to that kind of multi-media domination. They make good games and fun systems and make a profit off of them. Sure, they're a corporation, and all corps are trying to make more money and expand their market, but as companies go they're remarkably modest and humble. Just look at how often a Microsoft or Sony exec is quoted with some supremely arrogant claptrap, and contrast that with Nintendo's public statements.

It goes beyond just PR to a corporate culture. All companies exist to make money, but there are definitive differences between good and bad corporate cultures. If two games were equal in quality, I would rather buy the one made by Valve over the one made by EA, if only because I want my gaming dollars to reward good corporate and market policies.

And I can't believe you hammer them on not being visionary when all the Wii really did was take motion controller technology that been around for over ten years and repackage it in an under powered box they sell for a huge profit.

This is one of my problems with some Nintendo fans. They give Nintendo a free pass like it's a not for profit company. They aren't visionary. They're the least cutting edge with the highest profit.

They saw an opening for a repackaged well marketed low cost console they could sell in a void and you want to knight them? That's embarassing. They're in it for the money. Don't kid yourself. And visionary? You can't be serious...

The Wii is visionary and innovative. It's easy for all the critics to look back on the Wii launch, scoff and say "Geez, anyone could've done that." If it were so simple and easy, though, why didn't anyone do it? Do Microsoft and Sony not want millions of new gamers buying their consoles? Are they content catering to teen and adult males?

Of course not. Every video game company has been trying for years to break out of their established 13-40 year old male demographic and become mainstream. This huge untapped well of potential profit has been lying dormant since video games were invented, but for several decades no one has gotten more than a taste of that money. Sure, casual PC games have taken their slice of the pie, but the consumers still weren't buying console games.

Nintendo did much more than repackage old technology. If you just do that you end up with the Phantom. Packing more video power into a console isn't visionary, it's easy. Nintendo realized that the primary hurdle for non-gamers to get into consoles was the controller and the standard games. Modern game controllers aren't intuitive. If you're not trained by a lifetime of gaming to make a mental connection between pushing a button and having an on screen avatar swing a bat, it's difficult to get past the learning curve and into the fun part of a game. The Wii controller, although it's not brand new technology, is one of the best implementations of motion sensing technology for the average consumer. It is intuitive, so much so that your seventy year old grandma can pick up Wii Sports and play. Even Pac-Man on the 360 is not that intuitive.

Old people at retirement homes are buying and playing a gaming console! Non-gamer girlfriends are buying them for themselves! I bought my mother a Wii for her birthday and I'm giving her games for Christmas. She couldn't even play Super Mario Bros. on the NES! How is that not visionary?

Microsoft and Sony execs would give their left nuts to have come up with the Wii controller and Wii Sports. Even if everyone COULD have done it, only one company did. They had the insight, took the risks, did what no one else would, and are reaping the benefits. That's the definition of a visionary.

[bean19]

My problem with your fandom is that you make false attributions to Nintendo's success. They made a marketing triumph in successfully pitching 5-year old tech and an innovative new controller as a gaming revolution. Back that up with a small number of excellent first party titles, and an affordable launch price and suddenly you have a clear winner.

You do not clearly look at Nintendo's strengths and weaknesses. Their system is old technology that has terrible graphics and cannot manage complex tasks. The fact that they are dominating despite this is what is interesting about the Wii.

However, your a fanatic. . . the interesting discussions regarding the Wii will not include you. Your behavior, though, is interesting evidence. It is amazing how Nintendo fans completely disregard the Wii's problems. I'm having the most fun with my 360 and I'm probably a gamer before I'm a fan, so I might not be a good barometer - but I was super pissed at Microsoft for the number of problems the system had (and that older systems continue to have) until they extended the free warranty to 3 years and started actually fixing broken units as well as making sure newer units did not have the same failure rate. Likewise, I criticized the 360 for charing for the Gold service even though I acknowledge that the 360 has the best online features until Halo 3 and CoD 4 came out recently and made that charge worth it to me.

You never see the Nintendo fans like Chameleo or Ink Asylum bitching about the shitty graphics on the Wii or why the system is $250 when it costs less to make than an original Xbox. You never see them bitching about the lack of third-party games or the console's focus on puzzle and casual games. You never see them bitching about the high rate of crappy games vs. good games.

The Nintendo faithful are probably the most rabid fans out there. Their console is in the lead and is extending that lead every month, but they will never acknowledge problems, will probably disagree with all of the ones I've mentioned or attempt to minimize them, and will most certainly NEVER actually criticize their beloved console on their own.

[Ink Asylum]

My problem with your fandom is that you make false attributions to Nintendo's success. They made a marketing triumph in successfully pitching 5-year old tech and an innovative new controller as a gaming revolution. Back that up with a small number of excellent first party titles, and an affordable launch price and suddenly you have a clear winner.

It's all marketing? Please. Nintendo don't even have to advertise the damn thing and it would still be selling out. Nintendo's "marketing" is that the system is fun! Even if you've never played a game console before. My mom and brother (who doesn't play games) weren't wowed by fancy marketing. I brought over the Wii, they played Wii Sports and Wario Ware for an hour, and both wanted the system. That's not marketing, that's first hand experience and free word-of-mouth appeal.

Good games and an affordable price aren't marketing either, they're good business. If someting fun and worthwhile succeeds it's not always because of marketing. No one markets blowjobs, but they seem to be pretty popular.

You do not clearly look at Nintendo's strengths and weaknesses. Their system is old technology that has terrible graphics and cannot manage complex tasks. The fact that they are dominating despite this is what is interesting about the Wii.

Oh no! My games have less lighting and polys! How could they possibly be fun? Since when has a game's graphics ever been the determining factor for how fun it is? It's the gameplay that matters. The Mii's look like fucking Fisher Price toys! Who cares? Swinging your arm to bowl is more fun than stopping a little meter on screen.

The graphics might not be equal to the PS3 and 360, but they're hardly terrible. Only a small minority of graphics whores are going to pass up Mario Galaxy because there's no bump mapping or normal lighting or whatever bells and whistles are apparently imperative in order to make a game "fun".

The Wii outselling the PS3/360 despite inferior graphics isn't surprising at all. The DS outsells the PSP, too. Hell, the PS2 still sells like crazy. "Five year old graphics" means nothing to the average consumer and non-gamer. They want something fun and affordable, and the Wii delivers.

You never see the Nintendo fans like Chameleo or Ink Asylum bitching about the shitty graphics on the Wii or why the system is $250 when it costs less to make than an original Xbox. You never see them bitching about the lack of third-party games or the console's focus on puzzle and casual games. You never see them bitching about the high rate of crappy games vs. good games.

The Nintendo faithful are probably the most rabid fans out there. Their console is in the lead and is extending that lead every month, but they will never acknowledge problems, will probably disagree with all of the ones I've mentioned or attempt to minimize them, and will most certainly NEVER actually criticize their beloved console on their own.

I acknowledge that the Wii has inferior graphics. I acknowledge that the online capabilities could be better. I acknowledge that 3rd party developers need to make better games for it (although that's the developer's fault, not Nintendo's).

You know what, though? None of the Wii's "problems" matter to the average consumer. or to me, because they don't make the games less fun. The Wii's graphical limitations do not limit gameplay. The dearth of quality online titles means next to nothing for a system focused on gaming with your family and friends in your living room. Puzzle and casual games are fun and appeal to more people than "hardcore" games.

The Wii's success isn't surprising, it's perfectly understandable.

[Jack B]

Nintendo Visionary. You've got to be kidding. Cheap hardware in a market niche that's occupied by the PS2. That's it.

Nintendo's visionary console:

Technology:

1. Graphics = Weak.
2. Sound = Weak.
3. Motion Sensing = Very old technology.
4. Online = Weak.
5. Games = Mostly repackaged franchises using motion sensing.
6. Controllers = Great profits.

Business and Marketing:

1. Marketing = Brilliant. Great ads and a took a chance on standarizing old motion sensing in a new white package. It worked.
2. Manufacturing Cost = Very low and fiscally responsible.

That's not visionary.... It's opportunistic and sells well to a new demographic due to the low price and their marketing. They ducked and took the low end, that Sony and Microsoft left behind. Give their marketing and finance guys kudos, but visionary? Not a chance.

That low end is going to get crowded in the next 18 to 24 months price point wise. The party won't last forever.

What else was Nintendo supposed to do? They already got smacked last gen with the Gamecube. They aren't doing R&D to develop visionary technology. They caught a break with Sony and Microsoft pushing the console space. Good for them, but Sony and Microsoft were the visionaries.

[Johan]

Visionary or not, the damn thing sells better than the other two. The real question is if it will continue to do so, and if software sales will be good enough for anyone other than Nintendo to make money on the thing.

[Jack B]

Visionary or not, the damn thing sells better than the other two. The real question is if it will continue to do so, and if software sales will be good enough for anyone other than Nintendo to make money on the thing.

Yep, I continually give Nintendo kudos for their brilliant marketing and product positioning. They're also typically (not always... Reggie...) the kindlier gentler PR group. The fact they've generated profits following the Gamecubes performance is also not lost on me.

I'm also impressed with recent 3rd party sales. It's better than many expected and they're reaching a tipping point. They will likely get more 3rd party support. How much I'm not sure and whether they can maintain software sales is an unknown.

Having said that, I can't give them credit for any technology advancements or anything visonary. I think we're seeing more Nintendo fans getting a bit too excited about the 1st year's results. Way too early to claim victory. The development of the Cell, Blu-Ray, Console online services, video distribution, the 360's multi-core processor etc, are pushing the envelope. Visionary isn't typically a word reserved for the low end tech provider.

[Johan]

The development of the Cell, Blu-Ray, Console online services, video distribution, the 360's multi-core processor etc, are pushing the envelope. Visionary isn't typically a word reserved for the low end tech provider.

I pretty much agree. MS has really opened up new avenues for console gamers (and for developers/publishers) through Live. That's been visionary. Sony, if they succeed with BR, will also be seen as visionary. Nintendo has the controller dynamic, but I'm not sure that's visionary...probably more great packaging and marketing of a concept that has been used before (motion sensing controls).

[Ink Asylum]

Nintendo Visionary. You've got to be kidding. Cheap hardware in a market niche that's occupied by the PS2. That's it.

Nintendo's visionary console:

Technology:

1. Graphics = Weak.
2. Sound = Weak.
3. Motion Sensing = Very old technology.
4. Online = Weak.
5. Games = Mostly repackaged franchises using motion sensing.
6. Controllers = Great profits.

1. What's visionary about more polys and lighting? Once the jump was made from 2D to 3D there hasn't been anything truly visionary about graphics since. Until we're hopping into holodecks no one is doing anything visionary with pure graphical firepower. That's just standing on the shoulders of giants.
2. Again, since the invention of surround sound who has made any kind of grand visionary leap in sound technology in gaming?
3. Old technology maybe, but Nintendo made it accessible and workable on a home console and made it fun. If the Wiimote is such an old idea why hasn't anyone made it until now? It's certainly more visionary than the PS3 or 360 controllers.
4. Yeah, damn Nintendo for focusing on people playing in the same room together. This has always been their strength, and no one makes more consistently fun party games than Nintendo.
5. Proving that the controls are more than a gimmick, they actually improve gameplay. Metroid Prime 3 has a better control scheme than any dual-analog shooter ever will. Wii Sports changes the entire concept of a console sports game. WarioWare shows amazing diversity of control schemes for one little device.

Business and Marketing:

1. Marketing = Brilliant. Great ads and a took a chance on standarizing old motion sensing in a new white package. It worked.
2. Manufacturing Cost = Very low and fiscally responsible.

I don't know what stations you're watching, but out of all three consoles the Wii and its games have had the smallest advertising push. Nintendo has always taken a light hand with marketing, while Microsoft and Sony flood the world with ads. Halo 3 much?

That's not visionary.... It's opportunistic and sells well to a new demographic due to the low price and their marketing. They ducked and took the low end, that Sony and Microsoft left behind. Give their marketing and finance guys kudos, but visionary? Not a chance.

Sony and Microsoft took the standard gaming console path, beefing up their hardware specs and jamming more multimedia features into their system, thinking customers just wanted something bigger and faster and shinier. Standard corporate thinking.

Nintendo took HUGE risks. They completely changed the concept of the controller in an unproven direction. They aimed for a market that has been next to impossible to get a foothold in, women, parents, and non-gamers. They avoided the temptation of cutting edge graphics, believing that people would rather have an affordable system that still looks nice.

They looked at the current path of gaming systems, and saw that it wasn't working. The market was still the same boys and men that have always been video game fans. They made conscious design decisions that might have alienated regular gamers but stood a strong chance of finally breaking down the wall between gamers and non-gamers. They succeeded.

Nintendo didn't get lucky, they got smart. Smart enough to sell more consoles in one year than Microsoft sold in two. Smart enough to retake their position as the definition of video games. Smart enough to broaden the video game market to include everyone, not just young males.

That low end is going to get crowded in the next 18 to 24 months price point wise. The party won't last forever.

It doesn't matter how cheap the PS3 and 360 get. Mom, grandma, and your girlfriend are never going to buy them for themselves in the numbers that the Wii has achieved. That's a market that's still closed to those consoles. The Wii has universal appeal, except to jaded graphics whores, of course. Somehow, I doubt Nintendo is going to regret losing that demographic.

What else was Nintendo supposed to do? They already got smacked last gen with the Gamecube. They aren't doing R&D to develop visionary technology. They caught a break with Sony and Microsoft pushing the console space. Good for them, but Sony and Microsoft were the visionaries.

Sony and Microsoft opened doors for Nintendo? That's just ludicrous. If anything, Nintendo is doing more for gaming with one console than Sony and Microsoft has ever done. For years and years gaming has been a boys club hobby with a shitty mainstream perception. Nintendo has opened the flood gates and brought millions upon millions of new gamers into the console market. Many of these new gamers will move on to more complex games, lifting every console's ship. Others will, at the very least, be more accepting and respectful of games.

When videogames are the toys of boys, shooting and killing each other, they get a bad rap. How can you object to the concept of video games when you grandma is playing them, though?

Why is it so hard to give Nintendo the respect they've earned? Nintendo has done more for gaming since the NES than any other company. They rejuvenated the American games market after Atari's downfall. They defined the modern controller format with the NES gamepad. They introduced the analog stick with the N64. They built the foundations of handheld gaming. They create game genres with an astonishing frequency.

The Wii isn't some fluke in their history. Nintendo innovates constantly, certainly much more than Microsoft ever has or will. Why is that so hard to recognize?

Microsoft and Sony are good with technology, I'll give them that. But technology only gets you so far. Technology is useless without creative people to take advantage of it.

[Ink Asylum]

Having said that, I can't give them credit for any technology advancements or anything visonary. I think we're seeing more Nintendo fans getting a bit too excited about the 1st year's results. Way too early to claim victory. The development of the Cell, Blu-Ray, Console online services, video distribution, the 360's multi-core processor etc, are pushing the envelope. Visionary isn't typically a word reserved for the low end tech provider.

Technology isn't everything. If that's the only way you measure innovation, than you're never going to give Nintendo any credit, that's clear.

Nintendo isn't a technology company, nor have they ever claimed to be. They're a creative company. They make games, not tech. Their innovations and visions are related to gaming concepts and applications, not tech specs.

I'm more than willing to concede that Microsoft and Sony are better at developing technology. I'm not going to concede that their more creative than Nintendo.

At the end of the day, when you're talking about videogames, artistic and gameplay creativity matter a whole hell of a lot more than pure technology. You can't deny that. It is proven by the Wii sales, by the DS sales, and by the fact that the majority of the best-selling and best-rated games of all time are Nintendo products.

[Jack B]

Ink Asylum, don't you find it odd, that I credit Nintendo for many things, but not being Visionary.

You take my post about them not being visionary and disagree with each and every point I make. One of us is either dead wrong about every single thing or one of us is a big time fanboy who'll play devil's advocate to every single point and won't concede an inch.

Which do you think it is?

[Ink Asylum]

Ink Asylum, don't you find it odd, that I credit Nintendo for many things, but not being Visionary.

You take my post about them not being visionary and disagree with each and every point I make. One of us is either dead wrong about every single thing or one of us is a big time fanboy who'll play devil's advocate to every single point and won't concede an inch.

Which do you think it is?

I think we have different definitions of "Visionary". You clearly rank technological capability very highly. I believe artistry and creativity are more important.

How do you define a "Visionary" in the field of movies? The guy with the best camera? You can be a visionary director and advance the field of moviemaking with a black and white handicam. You can be a visionary writer using a hundred year old typerwriter. You can be a visionary artist with a number 2 pencil. You can be a visionary game maker with five year old technology.

[Kamalot]

Ink Asylum, don't you find it odd, that I credit Nintendo for many things, but not being Visionary.

You take my post about them not being visionary and disagree with each and every point I make. One of us is either dead wrong about every single thing or one of us is a big time fanboy who'll play devil's advocate to every single point and won't concede an inch.

Which do you think it is?

I think Nintendo is visionary, but maybe not in the same way other people measure.

I look at Nintendo as the house that gave us Super Mario Galaxy, and that game is probably best described as 'visionary'.

Sure, Nintendo isn't pioneering voice chat, or online communities, or high definition, but Nintendo IS redefining what video games are to the entire world. They did it with DS, and they are doing it with Wii. Those are damn visionary things to be doing.

I remember Iwata a number of years ago in a public appearance. He was stating that everyone we talk to has read a book, seen a movie, watched TV. But not everyone has played a game. Why is that? Why are video games not on the same level as other forms of popular media and entertainment? How can we take video games and make them approachable so that other people want to play?

Nintendo IS a very visionary company, that is always looking at the future of video games, but they are not a technology company.

[Ink Asylum]

I think Nintendo is visionary, but maybe not in the same way other people measure.

I look at Nintendo as the house that gave us Super Mario Galaxy, and that game is probably best described as 'visionary'.

Sure, Nintendo isn't pioneering voice chat, or online communities, or high definition, but Nintendo IS redefining what video games are to the entire world. They did it with DS, and they are doing it with Wii. Those are damn visionary things to be doing.

I remember Iwata a number of years ago in a public appearance. He was stating that everyone we talk to has read a book, seen a movie, watched TV. But not everyone has played a game. Why is that? Why are video games not on the same level as other forms of popular media and entertainment? How can we take video games and make them approachable so that other people want to play?

Nintendo IS a very visionary company, that is always looking at the future of video games, but they are not a technology company.

Fanboy!

:) Thank you Kamalot.

[Kamalot]

For example, the Mii channel on Wii is completely visionary. Is it technically impressive? No. Is it the very first character creator? No. Is it the best / most robust character creator? No.

Yet it is unique to home consoles, different, expandable, streamlined, focused and simple. It gives console goers a completely new way of interacting with their system, and does a lot on a personal level to help people connect with their system, and their avatar in it.

Never forget that streamlining, simplifying and keeping things simple yet effective is always more difficult than making things bigger / faster / louder / more powerful.

[Jack B]

Ink Asylum, you and Kamalot both gave your definitions of visionary, which are opinions. I accept your opinions. I don't believe the Wii has done enough to be visionary, but it's debatable. IMO, I still think the Wii is a Gamecube with new controllers.

As for my question to you about your objectivity you completely skirted my question. How could I be 100% wrong on everyone of my 10 points you disected? I am 100% wrong or are you 100% fanboy?

I've heard why Microsoft and Sony are just exploiting markets and you hope they fail and fail badly. Nintendo is a noble, just and visionary company. Yeah, I get it.

Now about disecting you? I ask again how can I be 100% wrong. Go reread your disection of my post.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink Asylum, you and Kamalot both gave your definitions of visionary. I still think the Wii is a Gamecube with new controllers.

As for my question to you about your objectivity you completely skirted my question. How could I be 100% wrong on everyone of my 10 points you dissected? I am 100% wrong or are you 100% fanboy?

You're correct that the Wii has inferior hardware, but to the average gamer the difference is negligible.

You're wrong that the Wii controllers are nothing new. The individual technologies may have already existed, but Nintendo put them all together and applied them to games in an incredibly fresh and visionary way.

You put far too much focus on the technology inside the box. No one but tech geeks cares about that.

You're dodging the question about whether artistic ability and creative design can be visionary. If they can, you simply cannot deny that Nintendo is a visionary in the video game industry.

As for being 100% right or 100% wrong, every one of your points is a matter of opinion. I've already acknowledged that the Wii's graphics, sounds and online are technically inferior. You call them Weak, I call them Impressive. Four stars to the 360's five. But most people can't tell the difference, or just don't care that much. The quality of the games is also a matter of opinion.

Dissecting me? Please, don't flatter yourself. The topics you avoid discussing and responding to speak just as much about your true feelings as you believe you are learning about mine.

[bean19]

I love the whole Nintendo fan defense against the fact that the system uses five year old technology to make a fast buck.

"Who cares as long as it's fun?" Well, I do. I'm not going to spend $250 on a system that has shit graphics even if it has 5 fun games on it. I'll just play it at my friend's house, thanks.

It's amazing that a system with terrible technology, online, and a high price point compared to it's technological peers (PS2 and original Xbox) is selling out like mad. Using a controller that appeals to casuals that also leverage's the businesses family-friendly image and that provides a market that is interested in their kid-friendly software is fucking brilliant. The only thing Nintendo has going for it is brilliant business acumen (marketing strategy - marketing is not only ads).

That's why it is so interesting. That's why business students will be writing their doctorates on the Wii and why business students will be studying it. Who else could bring an inferior product to market and have people fighting to get it? There are actually fans like Chameleo and Ink Asylum that regurgitate public relations for them every chance they get.

I'm not really this down on the Wii, btw. I find the situation remarkable, and I hate how the Nintendo fanboys cheapen it and obscure the cool conversation by attributing the Wii's success to "being fun" and other such bullshit. Sure, that's part of it. However, if Sony or Microsoft launched the Wii (even with Zelda on it), I'm willing to bet it would have crashed HARD. People would have justly said that $250 is too fucking much for old technology and the new controls only simulate real motion as they are not as precise as commercials lead people to think.

Nintendo made a brilliant business move, and it's one that is important to people who are fans of the industry or seeking to enter the industry to look at honestly. The Nintendo fandom can go suck it.

[Jack B]

Bean19, that was good stuff. :)

And I don't dislike the Wii either. Although it doesn't offer what I want, I understand why people buy it. It's bringing new gamers into the market, but some people get way way way to carried away about why it's selling well.

[bean19]

For example, the Mii channel on Wii is completely visionary. Is it technically impressive? No. Is it the very first character creator? No. Is it the best / most robust character creator? No.

Yet it is unique to home consoles, different, expandable, streamlined, focused and simple. It gives console goers a completely new way of interacting with their system, and does a lot on a personal level to help people connect with their system, and their avatar in it.

Never forget that streamlining, simplifying and keeping things simple yet effective is always more difficult than making things bigger / faster / louder / more powerful.

Now this is an interesting post. This looks at some of the things that the Wii actually did (and continues to do) right. I don't think anyone bought the Wii because the Mii channel was interesting, but it is stuff like this in general that has helped earn Nintendo a very positive brand image, and that most certainly plays a big role in their success.

I think having the killer price point. . . starting at a price point that is affordable for normal people - that is in realistic present spending range for children was the biggest factor. The 360 and the PS3 will realistically see their sales double (in month by month comparisons) when they finally get the systems down to mass-market prices.

The second biggest draw was the new controller that looks like it simulates real motion to play games, and that is easy enough to use in party games for non-gamers to feel successful when playing. That's a big deal. All of a sudden, the Wii is getting Mom and girlfriend approval because it looks like something they can play. Instead of being a videogame system that has traditionally excluded them from company with their family, it is a system that they think will allow them to play with their family. This broad appeal is HUGE.

Those are the two biggies, but what backs up this success is Nintendo's sparkling image. They're the Macintosh of home consoles. . . the loveable underdog that brings us rare but wonderful gems like Zelda and Mario. This is why they could pull this off when Microsoft and Sony may have failed if they were to have shipped the exact same product and promoted it the exact same way. They haven't earned Nintendo's granola factor.

That's the Wii success story. :)

[Ink Asylum]

I'm not really this down on the Wii, btw. I find the situation remarkable, and I hate how the Nintendo fanboys cheapen it and obscure the cool conversation by attributing the Wii's success to "being fun" and other such bullshit. Sure, that's part of it. However, if Sony or Microsoft launched the Wii (even with Zelda on it), I'm willing to bet it would have crashed HARD. People would have justly said that $250 is too fucking much for old technology and the new controls only simulate real motion as they are not as precise as commercials lead people to think.

You really think so? Tell me how the "Nintendo" name sells a console to people who have never played a video game in their lives? What do they know about games? Maybe the Nintendo name ruled the industry back in the NES/SNES days, but for the last two gaming cycles if you asked somebody who wasn't a gamer "What do you play video games on?" they would have said "PlayStation."

If the Nintendo brand name was that strong before the Wii (you know, when everyone in the industry was saying Nintendo should just quit consoles and go software only) why didn't the GameCube outsell the PS2/Xbox?

Do you really think the average consumer picks up a game console based on hardware specs?

The Microsoft Wii would've sold just as well. Have you ever had a group of nongamers over to play Wii Sports? After a couple hours it's almost guaranteed that a couple of them will want to buy the system. It's not the Nintendo name that sells the Wii, it's the fun factor.

[Ink Asylum]

I think having the killer price point. . . starting at a price point that is affordable for normal people - that is in realistic present spending range for children was the biggest factor. The 360 and the PS3 will realistically see their sales double (in month by month comparisons) when they finally get the systems down to mass-market prices.

Yet somehow the Wii is selling for more money than the 360 or PS3 this holiday season when you factor in bundling and ebay. It's not all hype and marketing.

The second biggest draw was the new controller that looks like it simulates real motion to play games, and that is easy enough to use in party games for non-gamers to feel successful when playing. That's a big deal. All of a sudden, the Wii is getting Mom and girlfriend approval because it looks like something they can play. Instead of being a videogame system that has traditionally excluded them from company with their family, it is a system that they think will allow them to play with their family. This broad appeal is HUGE.

In other words: "It's fun to play." It doesn't matter if you don't think it's fun, non-gamers and gamers alike think it's fun. Easy to play does not always equal fun. You still need games that are enjoyable.

Those are the two biggies, but what backs up this success is Nintendo's sparkling image. They're the Macintosh of home consoles. . . the loveable underdog that brings us rare but wonderful gems like Zelda and Mario. This is why they could pull this off when Microsoft and Sony may have failed if they were to have shipped the exact same product and promoted it the exact same way. They haven't earned Nintendo's granola factor.

That's the Wii success story. :)

So Apple only sells product because of their sparkling image, too? If Nintendo is the Apple of video games that's a high compliment, and means they make high-quality, dependable, enjoyable, easily accessible products.

[Ink Asylum]

Why is it so hard to admit this simple fact:

Playing the Wii is more fun for the majority of people than playing the 360 or PS3.

[Gorvi]

Why is it so hard to admit this simple fact:

Playing the Wii is more fun for the majority of people than playing the 360 or PS3.
I'll use the music analogy: most people would rather listen to rap or country than anything I'd care to listen to. That doesn't make it better. I think we've had this discussion before on EvAv and it was mostly agreed upon that just because something sells great doesn't exactly mean it is great. I believe the 50 Cent game was used as an example.

[Ink Asylum]

I'll use the music analogy: most people would rather listen to rap or country than anything I'd care to listen to. That doesn't make it better. I think we've had this discussion before on EvAv and it was mostly agreed upon that just because something sells great doesn't exactly mean it is great. I believe the 50 Cent game was used as an example.

Sure, everything is a matter of opinion. That's not why I posted that. It was in response to people saying that the only reason the Wii succeeds is because of clever marketing and a low price point.

Also, just because something is popular doesn't mean it ISN'T good. :)

[bean19]

Yet somehow the Wii is selling for more money than the 360 or PS3 this holiday season when you factor in bundling and ebay. It's not all hype and marketing.

1. You are confusing the issue. Low supply that results in a some bundles and ebay sells being higher than the retail price of consoles that are able to meet demand does not mean that everyone would be willing to pay higher prices for the Wii.

2. Who said that the Wii's success is all about hype and marketing. I never mentioned hype and I mentioned two other things besides marketing (innovative controller and brand image).

In other words: "It's fun to play." It doesn't matter if you don't think it's fun, non-gamers and gamers alike think it's fun. Easy to play does not always equal fun. You still need games that are enjoyable.

No. That's just plain wrong. That obscures the interesting information. What is cool about the Wii is how it is successful despite the fact that it uses 5-year old technology, has terrible online play, and is expensive compared to similar consoles (PS2 and the original Xbox). The reason people bought it isn't because "it is fun to play" (a subjective notion that woudl have to be qualified as a perception) but because of the deeper and more interesting reasons I mentioned like non-gamers being able to play.

This is a great example of why you really can't be a part of this conversation though. You're fucking retarded for the Wii and insist on broad generalizations that brand interesting observations as your personal PR slogans for your favorite toy. Go tickle your prostate with your Wii-mote while you masterbate to Link and Mario yaoi already.

So Apple only sells product because of their sparkling image, too?No. Also, again, I mentioned three things that are the keys to the Wii's success. . . not one. Three. For fuck's sake THREE!

xOrgLj9lOwk

If Nintendo is the Apple of video games that's a high compliment,

Yes, it is a high compliment, but I wasn't saying they share the same brand image as Apple that you described like a blushing, gasping damsel describing her first beau. I was comparing them to Apple because Apple sells products like CRAZY at higher prices than their competitors who are selling equal or superior products on many occasions because they are so successful at crafting a consumer-friendly brand image. Nintendo actually has a different positive brand image than Apple. They just use them to similar effect.

[Ink Asylum]

No. That's just plain wrong. That obscures the interesting information. What is cool about the Wii is how it is successful despite the fact that it uses 5-year old technology, has terrible online play, and is expensive compared to similar consoles (PS2 and the original Xbox). The reason people bought it isn't because "it is fun to play" (a subjective notion that woudl have to be qualified as a perception) but because of the deeper and more interesting reasons I mentioned like non-gamers being able to play.

This is a great example of why you really can't be a part of this conversation though. You're fucking retarded for the Wii and insist on broad generalizations that brand interesting observations as your personal PR slogans for your favorite toy. Go tickle your prostate with your Wii-mote while you masterbate to Link and Mario yaoi already.

Gutter talk and personal insults! Oh Internet, you have not let me down!

I just don't see why it's so hard to admit that the Wii is a fun system, and that's a major selling point, and probably the most important one. I may be a Nintendo fanboy, but Microsoft and Sony fanboys are so determined to tear down the Wii that they refuse to admit that it's highly possible, and much more likely, that people are buying the console because they honestly think it's fun. They explain away millions of customers by talking about marketing, price points, controller gimmicks, and hype.

Some games are more fun played using the Wii controller than they are using a regular controller. That's just plain common sense. When was the last time bowling was fun on a console? Yet the motion control alone turns a game concept that is usually all about stopping a meter into a truly fun experience.

Being fun is subjective? Of course. A movie being funny is a subjective opinion, too. People usually by things for subjective reasons. What's your point?

The reason people bought it isn't because "it is fun to play"? Really? Have you surveyed the millions of Wii owners? Or just your hardcore gaming self and buddies?

[Chameleo]

Nintendo Visionary. You've got to be kidding. Cheap hardware in a market niche that's occupied by the PS2. That's it.

Nintendo's visionary console:

Technology:

1. Graphics = Weak.
2. Sound = Weak.
3. Motion Sensing = Very old technology.
4. Online = Weak.
5. Games = Mostly repackaged franchises using motion sensing.
6. Controllers = Great profits.

Business and Marketing:

1. Marketing = Brilliant. Great ads and a took a chance on standarizing old motion sensing in a new white package. It worked.
2. Manufacturing Cost = Very low and fiscally responsible.

That's not visionary.... It's opportunistic and sells well to a new demographic due to the low price and their marketing. They ducked and took the low end, that Sony and Microsoft left behind. Give their marketing and finance guys kudos, but visionary? Not a chance.

That low end is going to get crowded in the next 18 to 24 months price point wise. The party won't last forever.

What else was Nintendo supposed to do? They already got smacked last gen with the Gamecube. They aren't doing R&D to develop visionary technology. They caught a break with Sony and Microsoft pushing the console space. Good for them, but Sony and Microsoft were the visionaries.

you're totally wrong.

to be visionary does not mean to go along with the common norm and do what is expected of you.

to be a 'visionary' you have to deviate from what is accepted and succeed.

i.e. to have a 'vision'. to see something others don't.. in nintendo's case, to see a market for motion sensitive controls and an underpowered machine.


MS and SONY are just one of the herd, running the course, doing exactly whats expected of them. that is *far* from visionary.

and because I think my last post was way too good to be glossed over like it has, i'll quote it again here.

I totally understand the hate...

MS has been on our PCs for over a decade now, and almost completely monopolized the PC OS scene. People do not like monopolies for the same reason they don't like dictatorships and totalitarianisms.... they have no choice. no matter how great a product MS is offering, it bugs you that there is no choice and that they've out-muscled all the other competition to get where they are...

When i first heard they were entering the console race, my first thought was, 'you're already in my PC, stay the fuck out of my living-room'. But I gave them a chance. I did a year of xbox live, had an original xbox and a bunch of games, and kinda enjoyed it. Wasn't totally for me though.... and I got rid of it after that first year.

Just because nintendo is making a profit, does not make them greedy. It makes them a company that survives just off the sales of what they make. and all they make is games. They do not have other divisions to support their 'games' divison, like SONY or MS. What MS and SONY are doing is much more insiduous than what Nintendo is doing, even though Nintendo is making money on each box sold, they're not trying to get you hooked on a 'media center' of sorts and take over your living room. The fact that MS and SONY sell their hardware at a loss makes the actions of those companies not seem more noble, but more conniving... it all seems like a 'the first hit is free...' scenario.


ragging on nintendo for 'repackaging old tech' is pretty low and pointless. What they've done took balls... To not put out an HD system on par with the other two looked like suicide before launch. Now that it has payed off, people try to downplay it as much as possible - but the fact remains, Nintendo defeated all odds on this bet - against all common sense and popular opinion..

'they saw an opening'...!? you really think this is something obvious to console makers? that its something you can just "see" and do? ... if it was so simple, MS and SONY would've tacked it onto their systems without a second thought.... they should've; the wii would be in huge trouble then....! And what kind of cost/performance hit would the 360 or PS3 take to impliment that tech? nadda. In the grand scheme of things, since its such 'old tech' - it wouldn't cost them anything.

So don't go on about how the Wii is an 'obvious' choice that Nintendo has just 'taken advantage' of.... it is an huge deviation from the norm and something this whole community scoffed at when it was first announced.


All the scoffing has now turned to downplaying; and thats what Nintendo fans are all up in arms about. Their little machine that could - did. And thats nothing to scoff about.

[Jack B]

you're totally wrong.

to be visionary does not mean to go along with the common norm and do what is expected of you.

to be a 'visionary' you have to deviate from what is accepted and succeed.

i.e. to have a 'vision'. to see something others don't.. in nintendo's case, to see a market for motion sensitive controls and an underpowered machine.


MS and SONY are just one of the herd, running the course, doing exactly whats expected of them. that is *far* from visionary.

and because I think my last post was way too good to be glossed over like it has, i'll quote it again here.

Really. It could be argued the visionary could have been Microsoft with the Sidewinder or the other companies who had motion sensing, light guns, zappers etc. long long long before the Wii.

It's just like Apple. They take things Xerox Parc already invented and all the Apple fans fawn all over them for their vision. Give them credit for some things, but not all.

Get a grip. The Wii didn't push the boundries of anything. They used a gamecube in new packaging and added motion sensing, which had been done many many many many many times before.

Get off your Nintendo high horse. Had anyone done an unified online service for a console before Xbox Live? Yeah, the Dreamcast. Had anyone done digital distribution of movies with a console. Ummm, I don't think so. Steam did digital distribution of games before Microsoft. IPTV. No one on a console, but it's been done before on PC's. Had anyone done Gamertags? How about Achievements?

You know if you'd wipe the cream off your fanboy glasses you might stop calling Nintendo such a great innovator with the Wii. I'm not on a soap box calling Microsoft a visionary for things they didn't innovate. Some they did, some they didn't. I know the difference. Some Nintendo fanboys are getting way too high and mighty.

And what about the PS3. Sony helped fund, develop and design both Blu-Ray and the Cell. That's innovation. Does it sell as well as the Wii. No, but don't try to tell me, that the Wii can hold a candle to those achievements. They can't, IMO.

Sony and Microsoft are trying to reshape the future of movie/cable/tv distribution in the living room from the Cable/Satelite companies. Yeah, that's not visionary. Same old thing. Running with the herd making video games. Oh, and the Wii is using a motion controller and selling well. WooHoo! Stop the presses. Zapper light guns and motion sensing have been around forever. What great visionaries Nintendo has become. :rolleyes:

You're killing me with this Nintendo Wii worship. Over zealous Nintendo fans are making me want to go buy a PS3 right now. I'll give them credit for being visionaries any day. Business acumen, not so much. :D

[Chameleo]

hmmmmm i don't think all that nintendo has done with the wii has been done 'many many many many many' times before...

and before you call me a nintendo fanboy, how about your Microsoft worship? Check out the log in your own eye before searching for the splinter in your fellow man's.


Yes it is all established technology - but no, it is not just a "repackaged gamecube with motion controls tacked on". its much more than that, it has (so far) proven to be the "revolution" Nintendo codenamed it. It has shaken up the industry in more ways than MS or SONY has in this gen.

Gamertags, Achievements, etc are all good and fine, but they're just extensions of the internet. We have stuff like Xfire and Steam and online communities. Sure I think its great that Xbox has implimented that stuff into Live, but don't tell me its "thinking outside the box".... I think it is a totally natural evolution. While the Wii is much more of an unnatural mutation.

The way you snap at me for being a "fanboy" and being on my "high horse" really shows your bitterness about how well the Wii has done in the past year and how great the future looks for the little console.

Quit being so jaded about a company you obviously dislike finally making a rebound after two generations of mediocrity...

Some Nintendo fanboys are getting way too high and mighty.

so I guess you're here to try and be a downer eh? You're doing a damn fine job with it. If you're going to be pessimistic about a console, choose the one thats achieving the least success and least critical acclaim. Not vice versa.

[Jack B]

so I guess you're here to try and be a downer eh? You're doing a damn fine job with it. If you're going to be pessimistic about a console, choose the one thats achieving the least success and least critical acclaim. Not vice versa.

I continue to give credit to Nintendo for what I believe they've done successfully. Read my posts in this thread.

I'm just not willing to take a terrific year of sales and call it visionary or revolutionary. It is what it is. The Wii is the only low priced next gen console on the market with 10 year old IR motion controls.

The combined sales of the HD consoles are higher than the sales of the low end Wii. Check the numbers. Look at November. Look at October. The high end PS3/360 market is doing just fine. At a higher price point. Where's the revolution? The Wii is not so dominant when you put it in that perspective. It's a value at it's price point, not a revolution.

================================

Here are November's numbers for next gen console sales.

Low End - Non HD

Wii = 981k units for approx $244m in sales

High End - HD

360/PS3 = 1,236k units for approx $541m in sales (WOW! The high end market is actually selling more units and more revenue. Gee, maybe Nintendo did duck and take the low end, but don't kid yourself the high end is not dead by any stretch. More units. More revenue. More software. Doh!

=======================

Yeah, the Wii has the low end market sewn up, because it's the only next game in town for the low end. Even at that, it can't outsell the high end market. If the Wii has revolutionized the industry so much, why do more people buy high end consoles? Why is there double the amount of revenue spent on high end consoles?

I'll tell you why. The Wii is low priced and a decent value, but get real, the high end market is just fine. And wait until the extended features keep getting added to the high end units at lower and lower prices. You may come back to Earth.

It's absurb to worship Nintendo after one good year. The console industry has been around for 30 years. You think it's over now? Good grief. You're being a way to giddy.

[Chameleo]

You may come back to Earth.

It's absurb to worship Nintendo after one good year. The console industry has been around for 30 years. You think it's over now? Good grief. You're being a way to giddy.

I'm not calling the game yet, i'm just being hopefully optimistic in the face of much-stronger-than-expected-sales, while you're being hopelessly pessimistic in the face of the exact same thing.


That is a good point that those HD consoles, combined sell more than the Wii and that consumers are spending more money on them. Thats the nature of the HD beast - a higher price for a marginal increase in asthetics...


I still see the Wii as being the "revolution" that Nintendo was looking for. Not only has it shaken up the industry (see Fatal Frame and Monster Hunter franchises) but it has also turned the company around from the N64 and Gamecube showings. It, so far, has really turned the game around, and I see them in a much better position than I ever expected. For that I am happy - what you don't seem to understand is the great triumph over all odds Nintendo has accomplished in this one (short, tiny, miniscule) year.

All the cards were stacked against them - there were talks of Nintendo completely dropping out of the Hardware business - and not without reason either.

The rebound they have made is nothing short of astounding, and deserve kudos.


They did not cop-out, they did not just step into the next gen in the same way everyone expected them to. They went against the norm, and smashed all expectations.

For that, they deserve more credit than the other two. (who have both done what was expected of them and performed at par for the course).

[Ink Asylum]

motion sensing, light guns, zappers etc. long long long before the Wii.

Oh, zappers? Like the NES? :D Nintendo was innovating video games years before Sony or Microsoft ever considered joining the field. That's why we give them respect. It's not like the Wii is the first Nintendo console I've owned. The company has a history of innovation. Perhaps not with raw technology, but with things that actually matter to video games, fun and gameplay innovations. Motion technology may have existed, it may have even been used in one-shot games, but Nintendo made a controller packed with more functions than any other motion sensing controller before it and still remained cheap and easy to use. That's the innovation. They figured out how to make the idea work, not the technology.

It's the same reason I give credit to Microsoft for Xbox Live. They didn't invent the internet or gaming online on consoles, they made it work and succeed. You can be a visionary without inventing new technology, you know. You're so obsessed with technology. You refuse to recognize non-technological achievements as visionary. Why?

If a movie director can create a new genre of film without new technology, they are a visionary. A video game company can be visionary for opening up the video game market without new technology.

Sony and Microsoft are trying to reshape the future of movie/cable/tv distribution in the living room from the Cable/Satelite companies. Yeah, that's not visionary. Same old thing. Running with the herd making video games. Oh, and the Wii is using a motion controller and selling well. WooHoo! Stop the presses. Zapper light guns and motion sensing have been around forever. What great visionaries Nintendo has become.

Maybe it's because, as gamers, we're more concerned with gaming innovations, than having our consoles turned into expensive mega-media machines.

I'm just not willing to take a terrific year of sales and call it visionary or revolutionary. It is what it is. The Wii is the only low priced next gen console on the market with 10 year old IR motion controls.

The Wii Remote could not have been made 10 years ago, not at the size and cost it is now. There's innovation in improving old technology.

As for what makes this year of sales visionary and revolutionary, once again it's because Nintendo is not selling to the same group of gamers the video game companies have been taking for granted. If you can't see the revolution taking place in video games as mothers and grandparents buy the system for themselves, then you're blinded by your obsession with technology. It's not the cheap price point, it's not clever marketing or a gimmick. Nintendo finally made video game consoles mainstream. Something everyone has always tried to do. They succeeded. That's the vision and the revolution. In a few years, after the Wii sells even more consoles, no one's going to be calling video games the hobby of socially maladjusted boys.


Yeah, the Wii has the low end market sewn up, because it's the only next game in town for the low end. Even at that, it can't outsell the high end market. If the Wii has revolutionized the industry so much, why do more people buy high end consoles? Why is there double the amount of revenue spent on high end consoles?

Wow! The Wii can't outsell two other systems? One of which has had a year's head start on marketing and production?

What a misleading argument. People are buying both the PS3 and 360, while you only need one Wii. And production problems are more limiting to the Wii's sell numbers than anything else. Who knows how many Wii's they might be selling if they could actually get them on the shelves. Some analysts estimate that Nintendo is missing out on a potential of $1.8billion in missed sales because they can't meet demand.

Wait, I found a chart that uses your line of thinking:
http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/octobernpd.jpg

Oh my god! The Wii is selling less than the Sony "Family"! The Wii can't compete!

[Kamalot]

Wii is like Microsoft Live.

Motion sensing devices existed before, but Nintendo built a console around them to great success.

Online communication and gaming has been around for a long time. Microsoft productized these services and built a console around them to great success.

They are both comprised of 'ingredients' that have existed for a long time. Yet these ingredients have been used to make something new, and visionary, in each case. Think of it like this... Microsoft used a bunch of raw ingredients to make a cake. Nintendo used a bunch of raw ingredients to make a pie.

[Ink Asylum]

They are both comprised of 'ingredients' that have existed for a long time. Yet these ingredients have been used to make something new, and visionary, in each case. Think of it like this... Microsoft used a bunch of raw ingredients to make a cake. Nintendo used a bunch of raw ingredients to make a pie.

The creator of the pie is one of the greatest visionaries in history. :)

Xbox Live was visionary and revolutionary. It did what has been done before, added a lot of new features, and had a better implementation, and changed console gaming to an amazing degree. Online gaming is now an important part of console gaming, because of Xbox Live.

The Wii is visionary and revolutionary. It did what has been done before, added a lot of new features, and had a better implementation, and changed console gaming to an amazing degree. Gaming is now breaking into new markets and becoming mainstream, because of the Wii.

This is why I just can't get too excited about the PS3 yet. Its most revolutionary feature, the Blu-Ray format, is not focused on gaming, it's focused on movies and dominating that market. I'm not interested in that. I want to move gaming forward in bold new directions.

[Kamalot]

This is why I just can't get too excited about the PS3 yet. Its most revolutionary feature, the Blu-Ray format, is not focused on gaming, it's focused on movies and dominating that market. I'm not interested in that. I want to move gaming forward in bold new directions.I gotta agree with you on this one. At least Wii and Live are focused on games first. Games are my hobby, not movies. Even if movies WERE my hobby, Bluray offers 'not a lot' to the movie experience. Sure, I can have more pixels and clarity, but Bluray does not make a movie any better. Yet take a regular game, even an old one like Doom, put in some Xbox Live co-op, and bingo-bango, instant added value to the title. Take a game and enhance the controls on Wii, like Resident Evil 4, and the game becomes BETTER than it would otherwise have been.

[Ink Asylum]

Oh shit! I called Xbox Live revolutionary and a boon to console gaming. I complimented Blu-Ray. The Nintendo Fanboy police are here to forcibly revoke my license!

They're breaking down the door! I don't have much time. Tell my wife I love-

[Jack B]

That is a good point that those HD consoles, combined sell more than the Wii and that consumers are spending more money on them. Thats the nature of the HD beast - a higher price for a marginal increase in asthetics...

The marginal increase in asthetics is definitely a topic for debate (see text in Dead Rising or Zelda...), but I would add that HD consoles offer quite a bit more than just graphics. Check my sig. That's the fundamental flaw made about the 360/PS3. It's not just graphics. It's way more. And people are paying more money to have it, so it's not lost on them either.

I still see the Wii as being the "revolution" that Nintendo was looking for. Not only has it shaken up the industry (see Fatal Frame and Monster Hunter franchises) but it has also turned the company around from the N64 and Gamecube showings. It, so far, has really turned the game around, and I see them in a much better position than I ever expected. For that I am happy - what you don't seem to understand is the great triumph over all odds Nintendo has accomplished in this one (short, tiny, miniscule) year.

All the cards were stacked against them - there were talks of Nintendo completely dropping out of the Hardware business - and not without reason either.

I'm glad to see you've soften your revolution statement to just Nintendo. I'd agree with those comments. Specifically for Nintendo the Wii has been absolutely amazing. Although it's increased their marketshare to above 33%, it's not to the 70% the PS2, PSOne had in the prior generations. And they'll only done it for one year, not ten. Great year for sure.

The rebound they have made is nothing short of astounding, and deserve kudos.

I couldn't agree more and I continue to give them kudos. I've just been battling in this thread against two primary points.

1. Consumers have spoken and they don't want the HD consoles.

I disagree very strongly and finally figured out I should just show numbers to make my point.

2. The Wii is visionary.

There are no numbers to support whether it is or isn't, but I've done my explain from my perspective it's a great product, positioned really well, but it's not visionary.

They did not cop-out, they did not just step into the next gen in the same way everyone expected them to. They went against the norm, and smashed all expectations.

Absolutely agree, they did the smart thing. I've used the term they "ducked" and grabbed the market below Sony and Microsoft. On the one hand anything else would likely have meant disaster, but on the other they did a great job upgrading the Gamecube. Making the HD gamecube without the motion controllers would have been disaster, IMO.

For that, they deserve more credit than the other two. (who have both done what was expected of them and performed at par for the course).

Hmmm, not sure about this one. They've performed much better from a CFO's perspective, but it's only one year. They still have many hurdles ahead. You need to have an understanding of how many people could get exposed to gaming if Microsoft and Sony start taking over the living rooms. All 3 companies are trying to broaden the market. Microsoft and Sony's plans will take more time, but you can see it building.

I think we're much closer to seeing eye to eye on this now. Kudos to Nintendo. They've knocked it out of the park in year one.

[Jack B]

Ink. List all the visionary things about the Wii.

1. Price.
2. Motion controllers.

OK. I don't get it. Explain the motion controller thing again. Didn't I see where you can control your Wii with a modified TV remote? Or was it the other way around...

Now show me how the hardcore market has gone away. Given just one console PS2 had 70% marketshare and add to that the Xbox's share and I'd say that's your target number. 70%. Maybe even 90% if you include the Xbox numbers.

Is the Wii at 70% marketshare yet? Nope. Give me a call when it gets there and I'll agree the people have spoken. You've spoken because your drunk on the Wii's success, but the people haven't.

I have numbers that back up my statement, that the people have not spoken. The hardcore market is doing just fine. Yeah, two companies are in it with pricey boxes, but they're still outselling the low end market. Where are your numbers the people have spoken and they don't see the value in the HD consoles? I'll wait for your numbers. 70-80%. I'll wait.

[Ink Asylum]

I couldn't agree more and I continue to give them kudos. I've just been battling in this thread against two primary points.

1. Consumers have spoken and they don't want the HD consoles.

I disagree very strongly and finally figured out I should just show numbers to make my point.

Well, as I mentioned, your numbers are misleading for three reasons: 1. People might buy both the PS3 and 360, but will only buy one Wii.
2. The 360 has been out for two years, the Wii only one. As a result they have more games and higher production capabilities.
3. The Wii is suffering from not being able to meet demand. If they could get enough Wiis on the shelves there is no telling how many they would sell.

Also, I personally have never said all consumers don't want HD consoles. I have said that the bulk of potential consumers (the moms, girlfriends, and grandparents) will not notice the graphical difference between the Wii and the PS3/360, and if they do it will not make them buy the 360/PS3 over the Wii. If the 360 sells better than the Wii in the long run, it will be mostly because of their games, not their graphics.

2. The Wii is visionary.

There are no numbers to support whether it is or isn't, but I've done my explain from my perspective it's a great product, positioned really well, but it's not visionary.

"Visionary" will remain a subjective opinion, but you have shown your bias for technology when determining what is "Visionary" and "Innovative." You rarely, if ever, have recognized anything artistic or creative as "Visionary." At most, you recognize marketing, which is a different beast altogether, and usually used as a backhanded compliment to explain away something popular a person doesn't like.

Absolutely agree, they did the smart thing. I've used the term they "ducked" and grabbed the market below Sony and Microsoft. On the one hand anything else would likely have meant disaster, but on the other they did a great job upgrading the Gamecube. Making the HD gamecube without the motion controllers would have been disaster, IMO.

You fail to recognize that this direction Nintendo has taken was not the result of Nintendo "ducking" Microsoft and Sony this generation after a poor showing on the GameCube. It is a comprehensive strategy that can be seen in all of their products back to the NES. Nintendo has been trying to break through the wall that separates "Gamers" from "Non-gamers" for longer than Sony and Microsoft have been in the games business. They have been honing their strategy and ideas for decades, the Wii is the end result of all the lessons they have learned.

For over twenty years Nintendo has been trying to make games and consoles that cater to everyone. Every new company that has joined the gaming race (Sega, Microsoft, Sony, and all the failed consoles like Jaguar) never really aimed for the big picture. Instead, they looked at who was already playing games (young males) and set their sights on that target, fighting over the biggest chunk of an established market by being toughter, flashier, and more extreme. All throughout that time Nintendo stuck with their original goal, "Get everyone playing games," even as the Playstations and Xboxes passed them in sales. They've never changed directions.

The term "ducking" has negative connotations, implying that Nintendo failed at the superior goal and is settling for something less. Instead, Nintendo has always been trying to capture the non-gamer market. These people Nintendo is selling millions of consoles to are not the low-hanging fruit, regular gamers are. Everyone knows how you cater to regular gamers. Better graphics, better sound, online, gritty, "mature" games. Getting non-gamers into gaming has always been the riper fruit, sitting just out of reach. Many have tried and failed to get to them. Nintendo isn't "ducking" Sony and Microsoft. If anything, they're "reaching" above them and claiming the bigger prize.

Hmmm, not sure about this one. They've performed much better from a CFO's perspective, but it's only one year. They still have many hurdles ahead. You need to have an understanding of how many people could get exposed to gaming if Microsoft and Sony start taking over the living rooms. All 3 companies are trying to broaden the market. Microsoft and Sony's plans will take more time, but you can see it building.

If Sony and Microsoft are ever going to take over the living rooms, they're going to have to steal a lot of ideas from Nintendo to do so. If they want to be mega-media-delivery-consoles, and be perceived as such in the public eye, they have to shed their games image and put the focus on the media qualities. Sony already tried doing that for their first year on the market. So far they have had little success. People still see both as games systems primarily, and if they're not gamers they will buy other hardware to play or download their media. It's not like they don't have options for HD and DVR.

The other option is to capture the same family and non-gamer market that Nintendo is selling to. In order to do that, they need to be seen as just as accessible and fun. Essentially, copying Nintendo, which is exactly what they've started doing recently.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink. List all the visionary things about the Wii.

1. Price.
2. Motion controllers.

OK. I don't get it. Explain the motion controller thing again. Didn't I see where you can control your Wii with a modified TV remote? Or was it the other way around...

Now show me how the hardcore market has gone away. Given just one console PS2 had 70% marketshare and add to that the Xbox's share and I'd say that's your target number. 70%. Maybe even 90% if you include the Xbox numbers.

Is the Wii at 70% marketshare yet? Nope. Give me a call when it gets there and I'll agree the people have spoken. You've spoken because your drunk on the Wii's success, but the people haven't.

I have numbers that back up my statement, that the people have not spoken. The hardcore market is doing just fine. Yeah, two companies are in it with pricey boxes, but they're still outselling the low end market. Where are your numbers the people have spoken and they don't see the value in the HD consoles? I'll wait for your numbers. 70-80%. I'll wait.

You really don't get it, do you? You're so wrapped in technology and specs and the old video game market, that you can't recognize abstract concepts like the public perception of video games and gaming's hindering inaccessibility (before the Wii, that is).

Please read my posting below this one. In it, I talk about how Nintendo's vision has ALWAYS been capturing the casual and mainstream audience. From the days of the NES their vision has been "Make everyone a video gamer. Make games another valid form of entertainment, just like books, movies, and tv. Make gaming something everyone does, not just young males."

Here. I'll let Satoru Iwata (Nintendo's President) explain it: ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Satoru_Iwata)

"Nintendo has strong views on how we should run our company. We consider ourselves, above all else, as a gaming company. We believe other companies (in the console marketplace) see themselves primarily as technology companies."

"Of course, we are applying advances in technology. But when you use those advances just to boost the processing power, the trade-off is that you increase power consumption, make the machine more expensive and make developing games more expensive. When I look at the balance of that trade-off -- what you gain and what you lose -- I don't think it's good. Nintendo is applying the benefits of advanced technology, but we're using it to make our machines more power-efficient, quieter and faster to start. And we're making a brand-new user interface. I think that way of thinking is the biggest difference."

"Talking about the definition of the niche, or niche market, I really have the completely opposite opinion. The people the other companies are targeting are very limited to those who are high-tech oriented, and core game players. They cannot expand beyond that population. We are trying to capture the widest possible audience all around the world. In other words, we are trying to capture the people who are even beyond the gaming population. So for that kind of company, we don't think the term 'niche' is appropriate."

"I've never once been embarrassed that children have supported Nintendo. I'm proud of it. That's because children judge products based on instinct. Everyone wants to appeal to people's instincts, but it's not easy. That doesn't mean we're making products just for children. We believe that there's interactive entertainment that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s can enjoy, so we're doing various things."

"Expanding the game audience with Wii means increasing the number of people in any household who are involved with games. Today, there are people who play, and people who do not. Wii will help destroy that wall between them."

"As we spend more time and money chasing exactly the same players, who are we leaving behind? Are we creating games just for each other? Do you have friends and family members who do not play video games? Well, why don't they?"

Those are the statements of a man and a company with a true vision, a vision Nintendo has strived for their entire time in the gaming industry. For you to deny that is just ridiculous. Their vision was to make every member of a family into a gamer, to make people in their 60's, 70's, and 80's into gamers. No other company has been able to do that with a console until the Wii and the DS. It's not something you can explain with technology, or hardware specs, or marketing, or numbers.

Do you want numbers that matter? Although I don't have the breakdown, it's common sense that the Wii and the DS have created more "new gamers" than any other console since the NES. 70% market share of a minority of the population is not as impressive as expanding that minority into a majority. If you don't think that matters, and you believe that adding multimedia capabilities to a 360 or PS3 will ever accomplish the same thing, you're fooling yourself. There are more non-gamers than there are gamers, and you don't make them into gamers by strapping a DVR or Blu-Ray onto the same imposing, complicated console. Without the Wii, even if you convinced your mom to buy a 360, she wouldn't have had any reason to play it. She would own a video game console, but she would remain a non-gamer.

[Jack B]

Ink, let's talk in 12-18 months when your mom is buying $60 games every month. ;)

[Ink Asylum]

Ink, let's talk in 12-18 months when your mom is buying $60 games every month. ;)

So you have no response to any of those quotes from Iwata, or the idea that the Wii is visionary not for any specific technological innovation, but for bringing gaming to non-gamers? I expected as much. Your refusal to recognize vision and innovation that is not directly tied to technology is quite telling of your biases.

My mom owns a Wii already, plus a DVD player and a DVR. She has no reason to own a PS3 or 360.

Be sure to let me know when your grandmother starts playing Halo 3.

[Jack B]

So you have no response to any of those quotes from Iwata, or the idea that the Wii is visionary not for any specific technological innovation, but for bringing gaming to non-gamers? I expected as much.

My mom owns a Wii already, plus a DVD player and a DVR. She has no reason to own a PS3 or 360.

The Wii is the only game in town at the low end price point and they still can't equal the PS2 and PSOne's dominance. I believe the Wii will fall back to 33% marketshare as the 360/PS3 hit their stride.

You don't. If you're idea of visionary is 33% marketshare then maybe we are on the same page. I see it as 70% marketshare. It won't happen.

Get ready for more affordable 360/PS3's with more features the Wii has no hope of adding. People will say, "Hey, now I can afford a Mercedes or a BMW or a Hyndai. Hmmm, the Hyndai is fun and cheaper, but I didn't realize I could afford a Mercedes or BMW. This is great, last year all I could afford was the Hyndai. Glad I waited...".

See you in 12-18 months and we'll have another talk about the Wii.

[Kamalot]

The Wii is the only game in town at the low end price point and they still can't equal the PS2 and PSOne's dominance. I believe the Wii will fall back to 33% marketshare as the 360/PS3 hit their stride.

You don't. If you're idea of visionary is 33% marketshare then maybe we are on the same page. I see it as 70% marketshare. It won't happen.
Is 'visionary' measured by marketshare?

I don't think so.

Aslo, you state that Wii can't match PS2's dominance. Yet Wii has sold TWICE what the PS2 sold in the same amount of time (http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=PS2&reg3=All&weeks=60). Wii is on track to be the most successful home console ever.

[Ink Asylum]

The Wii is the only game in town at the low end price point and they still can't equal the PS2 and PSOne's dominance. I believe the Wii will fall back to 33% marketshare as the 360/PS3 hit their stride.

You don't. If you're idea of visionary is 33% marketshare then maybe we are on the same page. I see it as 70% marketshare. It won't happen.

Get ready for more affordable 360/PS3's with more features the Wii has no hope of adding. People will say, "Hey, now I can afford a Mercedes or a BMW or a Hyndai. Hmmm, the Hyndai is fun and cheaper, but I didn't realize I could afford a Mercedes or BMW. This is great, last year all I could afford was the Hyndai. Glad I waited...".

See you in 12-18 months and we'll have another talk about the Wii.

Wow. You really just cannot seem to process the idea that Nintendo expanding the video gaming market with the Wii is a net gain for the industry, even if they don't sell five times as many consoles as the 360/PS3. Nintendo would be perfectly happy with 33% of all console sales, because the total number of consoles sold this generation will be so much larger than before, because Nintendo has changed the public perception of games. Before any non-gamer buys a 360 or PS3 they will buy a Wii. It is the gateway drug of videogames.

It's not price that primarily drives the Wii sales in the new casual market, it's the console's accessibility and fun-level for non-gamers. It doesn't matter how cheap the PS3 or 360 get. It doesn't matter how many non-gaming-related features they add. On a purely gaming level they will remain intimidating and inaccessible for non-gamers. The public perception of the 360 and PS3 is a hardcore system for young men. Even if this console does weasel its way into the home of a non-gamer, they're not going to be playing games on it. It's going to take a lot more than Viva Pinata, Scene It, and Buzz to make them pick up the controller.

Your car analogy is flawed. Driving a car is a similar experience no matter how expensive it is. If you can drive a Hyundai you can drive a Mercedes. If you can play Wii Sports that does not mean you can play Call of Duty 4. A more valid comparison would be a car and a plane. If planes were as cheap as cars, there wouldn't be a plane in every driveway next week. Planes require a lot more skill and training to fly without killing yourself. If someone is going to learn to fly a plane they're likely going to learn to drive a car first.

If Sony and Microsoft are ever going to sell to customers as a gaming console and not a media-machine, they're going to have to change their games and their perception to match the Wii. In other words, copy Nintendo.

You fail to recognize the difference between buying a PS3 to play Blu-Ray movies and buying it to play games. If a non-gamer purchases a PS3 to play movies there is a strong chance they will remain a non-gamer and never buy a PS3 game because the controller and games are inaccessible to them.

In other words, a PS3 in every home does not mean everyone in America is a gamer. Many, possibly most of them, will use it as a media platform and nothing else. Alternately, a Wii in every home means that someone, and likely everyone, in those households are now gamers. If you're primarily a gaming company like Nintendo, that's very important to you.

[Jack B]

Wow. You really just cannot seem to process the idea that Nintendo expanding the video gaming market with the Wii is a net gain for the industry, even if they don't sell five times as many consoles as the 360/PS3.

Do you purposely not read my posts. Who in the right fucking mind would say expanding the market isn't a good thing? And yeah I've mentioned that's a good thing many times myself.

Two things. Read my lips.

1. The Wii is not visionary.
2. The people haven't spoken and the PS3/360 are doing just fine in the high end. They are canabalizing each others sales, but the high end market is just fine. Look at the numbers. And it will only get better from here.

See you in 12-18 months.

[Kamalot]

1. The Wii is not visionary.

I don't see how you can argue this point. There is a ton of vision and forethought that has gone into the Wii in terms of controls, interface, product design, target market, product marketing and more. The vision for the Wii is one that does not rely on expensive technology to bring to fruition.

Having a vision, and implementing it, does not require the use of cutting-edge technology. In fact, the ability to thrive without doing the same thing as your competition is an indicator that the Wii is visionary.

I don't actually expect you to agree with me, since you've heard the same argument several times by others in the thread and still seem to not budge on your own definition of what makes a product visionary.

Aslo, I have trouble reading your lips when you hide behind the screen like that.

[Ink Asylum]

Do you purposely not read my posts. Who in the right fucking mind would say expanding the market isn't a good thing? And yeah I've mentioned that's a good thing many times myself.

Two things. Read my lips.

1. The Wii is not visionary.
2. The people haven't spoken and the PS3/360 are doing just fine in the high end. They are canabalizing each others sales, but the high end market is just fine. Look at the numbers. And it will only get better from here.

See you in 12-18 months.

I read all your posts, and they all display the same willful or ignorant disregard of how the public perceives gaming devices, and what Nintendo has done for twenty years to change that for the benefit of everyone who makes videogames.

If you say expanding the market is a good thing you cannot turn around and say "The Wii is not visionary." That is the utter contradiction in all of your arguments that you refuse to concede. The Wii will do more for gaming than any console since the NES.

The PS3/360 may do a lot for the field of downloadable multimedia and HD formats, but none of that helps gaming. For those of us that want gaming to be a respected and diverse form of media akin to books and movies, Nintendo is helping achieve that vision. Yes. That is a vision. Hence, the Wii is Visionary.

[Ink Asylum]

Here is Satoru Iwata's keynote speech at the 2006 GDC. ( http://kotaku.com/gaming/satoru-iwata/iwatas-gdc-keynote-uncut-163582.php)

I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing. It touches on the DS, DS Wi-Fi, casual games, and the Wii, but here is a choice quote about the controller. I've excised a few paragraphs to make it a quicker read and kept the important stuff.

...[H]ow did we get the idea for the Revolution free-hand controller?

Well, we started out with a very simple question: why is it that anyone feels comfortable picking up a remote control for a TV, but many people are afraid to even touch the controller for a video game system? This was our starting point.

Our first controller meetings began early in 2004, and from that initial thought we added two other requirements. First, the controller must be wireless. We need to give players freedom to move. And second, the look of the controller had to be simple and non-threatening. But of course, at the same time, it had to be sophisticated enough to serve the needs of complex games.

And yes, we also wanted it to be 'revolutionary'.

...[snip]...

Early last year a young team leader of the controller development group came up with a disruptive idea: what if you could play with just one hand?

Mr. Miyamoto quickly imagined a small, simple, wireless device. That intrigued us, but we realized an immediate problem. Considering our plans, how would we allow backward compatibility to all the previous Nintendo games that required two-hand control?

Again, Mr. Miyamoto had an answer: make the small wireless controller detachable from a larger, traditional controller ' both using the same wireless interface.

...[snip]...

Now, we really went to work. There were dozens of models and prototypes fabricated until we came up with the final result. And what did it look like?

Well, it looked exactly like the same TV remote control that we first imagined more than a year earlier. Sometimes ideas are like good wine in that they just need time. After all the designs and mockups, we were happy with the final result. It met our goals. It was wireless. It was inviting to new players. It offered something brand new for core players. And, it was also a new interface we could offer to every player.

...[snip]...

Some people put their money on the screen, but we decided to spend ours on the game experience. It is an investment in actual market disruption. Not simply to improve the market ' but disrupt it. We believe a truly new kind of game entertainment will not be realized unless there is a new way to connect a player to his game.

Sounds pretty visionary to me.

[Jack B]

I read all your posts, and they all display the same willful or ignorant disregard of how the public perceives gaming devices, and what Nintendo has done for twenty years to change that for the benefit of everyone who makes videogames.

If you say expanding the market is a good thing you cannot turn around and say "The Wii is not visionary." That is the utter contradiction in all of your arguments that you refuse to concede. The Wii will do more for gaming than any console since the NES.

The PS3/360 may do a lot for the field of downloadable multimedia and HD formats, but none of that helps gaming. For those of us that want gaming to be a respected and diverse form of media akin to books and movies, Nintendo is helping achieve that vision. Yes. That is a vision. Hence, the Wii is Visionary.

Why do you keep taking the visionary statement to include the DS and 20 years of Nintendo. Quit switching for the Wii.

I'm talking about the Wii. Quit broadening it from 1 year to 20. The Wii is a gamecube with new controllers using old technology. That's my take.

If I were to include every statement ever made by Bill Gates or many of Sony's PR pieces we'd find plenty of vision.

This is about the Wii. The Wii. The Wii. Get it? :)

[Jack B]

Here is Satoru Iwata's keynote speech at the 2006 GDC. ( http://kotaku.com/gaming/satoru-iwata/iwatas-gdc-keynote-uncut-163582.php)

I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing. It touches on the DS, DS Wi-Fi, casual games, and the Wii, but here is a choice quote about the controller. I've excised a few paragraphs to make it a quicker read and kept the important stuff.



Sounds pretty visionary to me.

Do you have a temple with candles at home and incense burning? :) I've been talking about the Wii. Quit getting off track.

[Jack B]

Yes. That is a vision. Hence, the Wii is Visionary.

I don't doubt you see visions. Try peyote or mushrooms it will enhance your visions. :D

[Ink Asylum]

Why do you keep taking the visionary statement to include the DS and 20 years of Nintendo. Quit switching for the Wii.

I'm talking about the Wii. Quit broadening it from 1 year to 20. The Wii is a gamecube with new controllers using old technology. That's my take.

The Wii is the end result of 20 years of experience in the video game hardware business. Nintendo's vision has never changed, it has always been to have everyone playing games as readily as they would board games, from kids to grandparents. The Wii if the pinnacle of that philosophy. The DS is the companion to the Wii, and shares all of the same design principles: a new control scheme, cheaper components than the competition, and and more accessible games.

Nintendo's history is perfectly valid in the discussion. The Wii did not come out of the ether. Nintendo used the wisdom they gained from their prior successes and failures and completed their vision. That's what being visionary is all about, looking at what was done in the past, improving upon it, and doing something new.

Did you bother to read Iwata's quoted speech about the Wii controller? If you can honestly read that and not admit that the controller is more than just old technology but a truly innovative and visionary device, you prove that you are blind to the importance of abstract concepts and can only argue numbers and technology.

[Kamalot]

If I were to include every statement ever made by Bill Gates or many of Sony's PR pieces we'd find plenty of vision.

Actually, Microsoft's Live integration is damn visionary. They had a plan on a network-connected gaming system, that brings its users together no matter what game they are in, or what movie they are watching. They are extending that onto the web, allowing people to publish their gamercards, and did an excellent job of productizing a bunch of raw ingredients into a new platform for distribution and communication. Their future vision includes the ability for people like you and I to make our own games, and publish them in a 'Youtube' like format online.

Sony's vision is to have a home system that you can use to buy more Sony movies and music. Their vision is much more focused on getting the next DVD format instead of gaming. In fact, their gaming feels like an afterthought when compared to the Wii and the 360.

Now, Sony has made a number of visionary statements, but most of them never come true. For example, Sony would talk about how the PS2 would be used to surf the Internet, download movies and games, and control your home. Yet that didn't really pan out, did it?

Having a vision is a good step towards having a visionary product, but you need execution to bring things to fruition. Otherwise, you are just a dreamer.

[Ink Asylum]

Do you have a temple with candles at home and incense burning? :) I've been talking about the Wii. Quit getting off track.

Ok. You obviously didn't bother reading what I quoted, then, since absolutely everything in the quote concerns the Wii controller. You know, the thing you keep saying isn't visionary. Nice try, though, but you merely prove that you're not really reading my posts, just looking for things you can cleverly respond to. Well done.

[Ink Asylum]

Having a vision is a good step towards having a visionary product, but you need execution to bring things to fruition. Otherwise, you are just a dreamer.

What he said. I've already said that Xbox Live is visionary. Sony is visionary, too, but their vision is about selling media, not improving video games. I'm interested in games. Hence why I'm hanging out in a gaming forum.

[Jack B]

What he said. I've already said that Xbox Live is visionary. Sony is visionary, too, but their vision is about selling media, not improving video games. I'm interested in games. Hence why I'm hanging out in a gaming forum.

Last I checked the 360 sells more games.

Also, this just in this morning Microsoft Teams Up With Viacom...Officially (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41597) in a 5 year $500m deal, that includes MTV, Paramount, Dreamworks, Nickelodeon (hmmm kids programming).

The Wii has no counter. IPTV and possibly Netflix up next. And don't think Ubisoft, Epic, Electronic Arts, Konami, Capcom etc will quit making software for the 360, because they're "focused on owning the living room". They'll make more software because of it.

The Wii has chosen their market and done well in year one. Nintendo knows it's about to get much much tougher in years 2 and 3. I recommend not celebrating quite so much or you could look really foolish very soon.

[Ink Asylum]

Last I checked the 360 sells more games.

It also has more games available. Besides, numbers of games purchased means less and less as the hardware gap grows. If the Wii sells twice as much hardware as the 360 they can sell half the games per console.

Besides, when I say games, I'm not talking about numbers of games sold, but the public perception of games and how we play games. Of course, I don't expect you to ever address these abstract concepts. You're too tied up in technology and sales numbers.

Also, this just in this morning Microsoft Teams Up With Viacom...Officially (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41597) in a 5 year $500m deal, that includes MTV, Paramount, Dreamworks, Nickelodeon (hmmm kids programming).

The Wii has no counter. IPTV and possibly Netflix up next. And don't think Ubisoft, Epic, Electronic Arts, Konami, Capcom etc will quit making software for the 360, because they're "focused on owning the living room". They'll make more software because of it.

Once again, you're talking about media companies. I'm talking about games. We all saw how much egg the third parties had on their faces when they put all their eggs in Sony's basket and ignored the Wii. Now they're all scrambling to make Wii games. Nintendo doesn't need to "own the living room" they just need to be there, and they seem to be getting into more living rooms faster than either the 360 or PS3.

[Kamalot]

We all saw how much egg the third parties had on their faces when they put all their eggs in Sony's basket and ignored the Wii. Now they're all scrambling to make Wii games.

I see what you did there...

[Ink Asylum]

I see what you did there...

Hahah! Completely unintentional, I swear! Puns are so ingrained into my system that sometimes they sneak out when I least expect it.

[bean19]

It also has more games available. Besides, numbers of games purchased means less and less as the hardware gap grows. If the Wii sells twice as much hardware as the 360 they can sell half the games per console.

Besides, when I say games, I'm not talking about numbers of games sold, but the public perception of games and how we play games. Of course, I don't expect you to ever address these abstract concepts. You're too tied up in technology and sales numbers.

The Xbox 360 not only sells more games total, it has a great deal more best-selling games. The 360 has 30 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies. The Wii only has 15 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies and their two "top sellers" shouldn't really be counted as they are bundled with controllers and the system.

The Wii controller isn't the second coming of Jesus no matter how much you talk about it. It's inaccurate and trying to use the pointer function in gameplay is often like trying to pilot a straw with a rocket engine. It's new, and that's good. It also makes people who don't own one THINK that it will give them greater control, and it does actually lend itself to fun game modes in party games and some neat new puzzles in games. It's very innovative and cool because of these strengths.

The problem I have with your fandom is that you don't see the faults with the controller or with the system. I come to Evil Avatar to talk games the way a sports fan might go to a football forum to talk about football. You're like the guy who is so far up the New England Patriot's ass that you can't imagine them losing and object any discussions that involve them that aren't pure praise. That's fine in this old thread that no one else is reading anymore, but the problem is that you often interject all this fandom into real discussions and a lot of people respond to the noise.

[Chameleo]

The marginal increase in asthetics is definitely a topic for debate (see text in Dead Rising or Zelda...), but I would add that HD consoles offer quite a bit more than just graphics. Check my sig. That's the fundamental flaw made about the 360/PS3. It's not just graphics. It's way more. And people are paying more money to have it, so it's not lost on them either.

Sure there are a few other enhancements, the biggest being Online - yet is that such a jump ahead? you're talking about MS's sidewinder in comparison to the Wii remote and saying thats 10 years old - well the Internet is older than the sidewinder and thats what we have on the xbox....


I'm glad to see you've soften your revolution statement to just Nintendo. I'd agree with those comments. Specifically for Nintendo the Wii has been absolutely amazing. Although it's increased their marketshare to above 33%, it's not to the 70% the PS2, PSOne had in the prior generations. And they'll only done it for one year, not ten. Great year for sure.

thats what i've been saying all along! its been a revolution for Nintendo because they've garnered back some of the respect they lost with the N64! they're a contender again...! No, its not the PS1 or PS2, but has kamalot has pointed out, its on track to become them.... make of that what you will *shrug*


I couldn't agree more and I continue to give them kudos. I've just been battling in this thread against two primary points.

1. Consumers have spoken and they don't want the HD consoles.

I agree with you, HD tech is definately on the rise. But where else can it go from zero?


I disagree very strongly and finally figured out I should just show numbers to make my point.

2. The Wii is visionary.

There are no numbers to support whether it is or isn't, but I've done my explain from my perspective it's a great product, positioned really well, but it's not visionary.

there are no numbers? well its sold at double the rate of the 360, so if you are going to call the 360 visionary, you'd have to come up with a stronger adjective for the Wii.


Absolutely agree, they did the smart thing. I've used the term they "ducked" and grabbed the market below Sony and Microsoft. On the one hand anything else would likely have meant disaster, but on the other they did a great job upgrading the Gamecube. Making the HD gamecube without the motion controllers would have been disaster, IMO.

You really think so? (bolded text) As you've proven, HD technology is on the rise - If Nintendo released an HD console, I don't see how it would do any worse than the PS3 is doing now. and that of course would've just handed the generation to the 360. We can thank them for saving us from yet another MS monopoly.


Hmmm, not sure about this one. They've performed much better from a CFO's perspective, but it's only one year. They still have many hurdles ahead. You need to have an understanding of how many people could get exposed to gaming if Microsoft and Sony start taking over the living rooms. All 3 companies are trying to broaden the market. Microsoft and Sony's plans will take more time, but you can see it building.

I think we're much closer to seeing eye to eye on this now. Kudos to Nintendo. They've knocked it out of the park in year one.

You keep saying 'only one year'; but from a different perspective - that of it not showing enough for us to pass any judgement. I see it as 'only one year' and look how *much* they've done. *shrug* just different viewpoints.

and yes, Nitendo did gamble BIG TIME, (i'd say more than SONY gambled with blu-ray and more than MS gambled with LIVE). Imagine if their underpowered, upgraded, motion sensing Gamecube2 flopped?.... they'd be completely relegated to the portable business.... And the next Nintendo machine would be the real Gamecube 2 - because i bet it'd be on par w/ the next machines from SONY and MS. (Theres no doubt Nintendo could have put together a "next gen" HD machine, they did it every generation up to this one)..


In the short term - just this one year - Nintendo has exposed more people to gaming with their retro-fitted-innovative control than either MS/PS3 has with their media-center-type boxes. In the long term, we can't really call the game - but what we *can* say is that Nintendo has the *potential* to do as much expanding of the market as either of their competitors - and with a machine that many refer to as "two gamecubes duck taped together".


Hopefully in year two the strong sales continue. Everyone who wanted a Wii at launch and couldn't get one just decided to wait till this year. Now demand is still high, in fact higher than last year - when will it taper off? I hope demand is as high next christmas, for Nintendo's sake.... I'm not big on the "all-in-one" media machines. In fact I'm not big on *anything* thats all-in-one... I guess thats where our fundamental differences lie.

[Jack B]

Damn Bean, that was a good post. I especially liked the New England Patriots part.

And yeah, I think there are only 5 of us tops still reading this thread. It's been fun though! :D

[Chameleo]

Damn Bean, that was a good post. I especially liked the New England Patriots part.

And yeah, I think there are only 5 of us tops still reading this thread. It's been fun though! :D

i like this thread. its healthy debate without (much) namecalling and swearing. (you dont have to insinuate that Ink is a druggie, really Jack. I know he's saying you're stubborn, but really, thats not as bad as being an addict). I really hate people who insult you and do their best to slander your character. (schnoogs).

can't argue with trolls.... luckily there are none here.

[Chameleo]

The Xbox 360 not only sells more games total, it has a great deal more best-selling games. The 360 has 30 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies. The Wii only has 15 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies and their two "top sellers" shouldn't really be counted as they are bundled with controllers and the system.

and I commend the 360 on that. It is definately the heart of hardcore gaming this generation. Its a great continuation of the original xbox - and it took the PS2's concept, improved on it, and blew it out of the water, feature-wise...

Whats really too bad is that only hardcore gamers are buying it. It'd be nice if they had an audience like the PS2's or Wii's. People who bought the PS2 for the DVD player and people who buy the Wii to play a simple game once in a while...


The Wii controller isn't the second coming of Jesus no matter how much you talk about it. It's inaccurate and trying to use the pointer function in gameplay is often like trying to pilot a straw with a rocket engine. It's new, and that's good. It also makes people who don't own one THINK that it will give them greater control, and it does actually lend itself to fun game modes in party games and some neat new puzzles in games. It's very innovative and cool because of these strengths.

I strongly think that the wii control's top feature is POINTING. Being able to point at the screen and interact w/ it is HUGE. The motion stuff is just a fun way to replace button pushes (which is big for casuals, but not experienced gamers like us). but being able to point at the screen is massive. I see that as 'revolutionary' - even though we've been pointing at screens for years on the PC. (same way xbox live is 'revolutionary' even though we've been building communities on the web for years).

The problem I have with your fandom is that you don't see the faults with the controller or with the system. I come to Evil Avatar to talk games the way a sports fan might go to a football forum to talk about football. You're like the guy who is so far up the New England Patriot's ass that you can't imagine them losing and object any discussions that involve them that aren't pure praise. That's fine in this old thread that no one else is reading anymore, but the problem is that you often interject all this fandom into real discussions and a lot of people respond to the noise.

Sure nintendo fans see the faults in the wii. they just downplay them. Like fans of other systems who downplay the Wii's success and exaggerate upon the features of the other systems.... Its natural for people to have different perspectives based on their biases. Thats what makes conversation interesting.

[Jack B]

Cameleo, good post. Pretty rational, IMO.

I do think an HD Wii would have priced them out of the lower end market and would have caused a much more head on with Microsoft and Sony. They wouldn't have sold as many as they have at $249. Less software sales would have resulted in less 3rd party interest. The 3rd party support they are getting now may not have happened because of the legacy of the Gamecube. Because they've sold so well at $249 the 3rd parties are now taking notice. I don't think that happens with a DVD-9, Dolby 5.1, HD box with a more expensive processor to push 720p/1080p with a hard drive and a bunch of ports.

That would open them up to direct comparision with the 360 and PS3. It's the "I can only afford X dollars" problem. Right now many buyers can only afford the Wii, so no comparision is needed. When all 3 are within someone's price range it changes their buying decision.

A price drop for the PS3/360 helps them more over time than the Wii, because the Wii is already low enough to be included in a consumers budget. The 360/PS3 is often not. Price drops help them more over time.Within 12-18 months there will be 1 or 2 more price cuts for the 360 and the PS3. Things will change a lot at that point. The Wii will pretty much deliver the same value. The PS3/360 may deliver the same game value with a bunch of extras.

DVR support, Divx, Xvid support, IPTV, Netflix, TV's, Movies. It's all bonus. Some won't care, but for some it's the differentiator. It will be a differentiator for some. How does the Wii counter? Lower price? At some point the price doesn't make that much difference, it becomes about the games and extras. The PS3/360 will have the extras. They're built for that, the Wii isn't.

We should revive this thread in years 2, 3, 4 and 5 to see how it turns out. I believe the Wii is in for a real struggle long term. 33% market share would be a victory for Nintendo, IMO. That's a revolution for Nintendo, but nothing dramatic by the end of the generation.

[Jack B]

i like this thread. its healthy debate without (much) namecalling and swearing. (you dont have to insinuate that Ink is a druggie, really Jack. I know he's saying you're stubborn, but really, thats not as bad as being an addict). I really hate people who insult you and do their best to slander your character. (schnoogs).

can't argue with trolls.... luckily there are none here.

Well, it was a joke about the peyote and mushrooms. I meant it as an insult, but it wasn't serious about the drugs and shrine with the candles. :D

Just like I don't really think Bean thought Ink is actually "up the Patriots ass". It would be almost impossible to accomplish in real life. Just an insult. Pretty good one, but still. ;)

[Chameleo]

Cameleo, good post. Pretty rational, IMO.

I do think an HD Wii would have priced them out of the lower end market and would have caused a much more head on with Microsoft and Sony. They wouldn't have sold as many as they have at $249. Less software sales would have resulted in less 3rd party interest. The 3rd party support they are getting now may not have happened because of the legacy of the Gamecube. Because they've sold so well at $249 the 3rd parties are now taking notice. I don't think that happens with a DVD-9, Dolby 5.1, HD box with a more expensive processor to push 720p/1080p with a hard drive and a bunch of ports.

That would open them up to direct comparision with the 360 and PS3. It's the "I can only afford X dollars" problem. Right now many buyers can only afford the Wii, so no comparision is needed. When all 3 are within someone's price range it changes their buying decision.

A price drop for the PS3/360 helps them more over time than the Wii, because the Wii is already low enough to be included in a consumers budget. The 360/PS3 is often not. Price drops help them more over time.Within 12-18 months there will be 1 or 2 more price cuts for the 360 and the PS3. Things will change a lot at that point. The Wii will pretty much deliver the same value. The PS3/360 may deliver the same game value with a bunch of extras.

DVR support, Divx, Xvid support, IPTV, Netflix, TV's, Movies. It's all bonus. Some won't care, but for some it's the differentiator. It will be a differentiator for some. How does the Wii counter? Lower price? At some point the price doesn't make that much difference, it becomes about the games and extras. The PS3/360 will have the extras. They're built for that, the Wii isn't.

We should revive this thread in years 2, 3, 4 and 5 to see how it turns out. I believe the Wii is in for a real struggle long term. 33% market share would be a victory for Nintendo, IMO. That's a revolution for Nintendo, but nothing dramatic by the end of the generation.

the nature of an HD machine is one that is on par with the two current ones - that would be priced with the PS3 and the 360. just as the gamecube was. I think the "HD Wii" would be priced at the point of the PS3 - because Nintendo has never been one to take a hit on hardware (thats how they stay afloat as a company).

But you're right - it wouldn't have done any better than the gamecube. Which was to grab 30% of the marketshare - which is, at best, mediocre. (its enough to keep the company afloat, but thats about it).

I know what you mean by the price threshold - when all machines drop under that magic line, then we'll see some heated competition. I'll still contend though, that with a further price drop (sub-$200 level) the Wii will retain its competetiveness. I mean, kids with allowances can save up enough for that, while the other machines still take part time jobs to afford.

As for the PS3 and 360 "extras".... well in the first year we've seen the launch of three "channels" on the Wii which can be viewed as "extras". We've got the Opera internet browser, along with USB keyboard support. (which has just been opened up for the development community to get their hands on - no way we can downplay that - its huge for smalltime game devs to get their game out there ... check the Wii Arcade (http://www.wiiarcade.com/) for reference, its a website you run through your Wii opera browser and play small home-brew games on..) We've seen the launch of the "everybody votes" and "check mii out" channels. Sure they're not huge extras like downloadable movies, TV and music, but they are something different, unique and not available anywhere else. Can the same be said for movies, TV and music?

And speaking of homebrew, the Wii has already been altered to allow DVD playback. The Wii has also gone through multiple software revisions, showing that it has the same potential to offer "more" as the other consoles. It's biggest limitation being the lack of a harddrive - but there are a couple USB ports at the back for "after-thoughts". We can't discount the potential in the Wii while praising it in the other machines, just because we favour one over the other.



as per the bolded text: 33% is a revolution for nintendo?! are you serious?! This I strongly disagree with. they had that with the gamecube! why would it be big for them to just repeat what has been aptly described as mediocrity? No way Nintendo would be satisfied with 33% of the end-gen marketshare - especially with the leaping start they had. That would be a disappointment of epic proportions. To catch up to the 360 in less than a year, and then totally lose all mometum and practically stop in its tracks - that would be a huge FAIL. They've almost sold half the gamecube's total lifetime sales, so evidence thus far indicates strongly against a halt of momentum... Like Kamalot has pointed out, the Wii is more than on-track to be on par with the PS2 sales wise, through one year on the market. When you look at the grand scheme of things, thats huge. How many consoles can say that they're on track with the biggest one of all time? and not just for one or two months, all twelve of them!

Anyways, I've gone on too long - but some food for thought. Hopefully.

[Jack B]

Chameleo, Wikipedia has last gen sales at

Gamecube at 21m
Xbox at 24m
PS2 at 120m

that's only 13% for the Gamecube. I would say 33% is a terrific accomplishment if the Wii holds on to that number.

Your comments on the Wii channels ect, are valid. It's not a ton, but they are adding some of that functionality. If the 360 pulls of IPTV and that's still a big if, because of the licensing. IPTV is already to go, it just needs the coverage and AT&T support etc. I think it will happen and make an impact in the next 12 months, but we'll see.

I wouldn't doubt only a percentage will take advantage of IPTV, but it will be a big part of the future of TV distribution shortly. DVR is a bonus that makes IPTV more compelling.

The Netflix and other movie deals are significant bonus features. DVIX and Xvid were big deals, but 5,000 additional movies for digital distribution would leapfrog anything else available via a TV connection. Instant win for a lot of people.

Should be fun watching all the excitement in the next 2-4 years. I believe this generation will change more from beginning to end than any other. No one should be claiming victory right now. It's way early. I think the 360 has the inside track, but I could be wrong.

[Ink Asylum]

The Xbox 360 not only sells more games total, it has a great deal more best-selling games. The 360 has 30 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies. The Wii only has 15 games (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales) that have sold over a million copies and their two "top sellers" shouldn't really be counted as they are bundled with controllers and the system.

Once again, the 360 has been out for twice as long as the Wii. So what's twice 15? 30. Funny how that works out. :) So essentially you're saying that the Wii's on target to have exactly as many million sellers as the 360. That sounds good to me.

If you want to compare numbers between 360 to the Wii you have to either use stats from the 360's 1st birthday, or wait a year and compare today's 360 numbers to the Wii's at 2 years old.

Of course, there's one number that blows the 360 away, and that's the fact that the Wii sold more systems in one year than the 360 sold in two. Sure, it's cheaper, but that's still impressive.

The Wii controller isn't the second coming of Jesus no matter how much you talk about it. It's inaccurate and trying to use the pointer function in gameplay is often like trying to pilot a straw with a rocket engine. It's new, and that's good. It also makes people who don't own one THINK that it will give them greater control, and it does actually lend itself to fun game modes in party games and some neat new puzzles in games. It's very innovative and cool because of these strengths.

Greater control? In some ways yes, in some ways no. It's not utterly accurate, but it's a better way to control a whole lot of games than a controller. Shooters, for one. Metroid Prime 3 has raised the bar for console FPS control schemes. It's still not on the level of the mouse/keyboard, but it's a hell of a lot more responsive and accurate than dual analog. It's also pretty effective for sports games, driving games, and others. And it's a hell of a lot more immersing than tapping buttons on a controller. I thought we wanted to move towards more engaging games, right? The Wiimote brings us a little bit closer to that vision.

The point isn't that the Wiimote is the ultimate in controller technology, and needs no improvement. There are things that can be improved, I gladly admit that, and I look forward to the Wii2, so Nintendo can iron out the kinks.

The point is that it's different and accessible. Like the DS stylus controls, it allows for new game types and experiences on consoles. That's a good thing, and long overdue. Who doesn't want new types of games? Well, the Wiimote allows for those games while still having all the functions of a regular controller. You don't need a racing wheel, just hold your Wiimote sideways. You don't need a mouse adapter, just point at the screen.

It's been known for years that the standard console controller is intimidating to non-gamers. Everyone knows that if you put one into a non-gamer's hands you have to spend a ton of time explaining the controls as they fail again and again. Unless you've had a controller in your hands since the age of five, like most of us, it just doesn't come naturally. But if you give someone a Wiimote and Wii Sports they'll teach themselves how to play in a matter of minutes. Could it have been done years ago? Maybe, but everything looks obvious in hindsight.

The Wiimote has faults, but people who dismiss it as gimmicky, or inaccurate, or old technology ignore the incredible boon it is to gaming. It has the twin benefits of getting millions of new people into gaming as well as opening up entirely new ways to play games.

Sure, call it imperfect, but it's impossible to deny that it was created with a clear vision in mind, and that vision is being achieved with every console sold and every new game that takes advantage of its unique attributes.

[Chameleo]

Chameleo, Wikipedia has last gen sales at

Gamecube at 21m
Xbox at 24m
PS2 at 120m

that's only 13% for the Gamecube. I would say 33% is a terrific accomplishment if the Wii holds on to that number.

Your comments on the Wii channels ect, are valid. It's not a ton, but they are adding some of that functionality. If the 360 pulls of IPTV and that's still a big if, because of the licensing. IPTV is already to go, it just needs the coverage and AT&T support etc. I think it will happen and make an impact in the next 12 months, but we'll see.

I wouldn't doubt only a percentage will take advantage of IPTV, but it will be a big part of the future of TV distribution shortly. DVR is a bonus that makes IPTV more compelling.

The Netflix and other movie deals are significant bonus features. DVIX and Xvid were big deals, but 5,000 additional movies for digital distribution would leapfrog anything else available via a TV connection. Instant win for a lot of people.

Should be fun watching all the excitement in the next 2-4 years. I believe this generation will change more from beginning to end than any other. No one should be claiming victory right now. It's way early. I think the 360 has the inside track, but I could be wrong.

ah, i thought last gen the gamecube grabbed about 30%. half of that. hm, thats pretty terrible.

TV/Movies through your Xbox sounds pretty cool - it'd be like a TiVo then, wouldn't it? You'd have to pay per month, but I'm sure that there are some willing to do that.


I don't think anyone (cept for people who don't like to make sense) is calling the race yet... we're just being optimistic/pessimistic etc... we've all got our bets riding on our horses and we want the best for our wager!

The 360 has a rich feature-set that many might desire - but so does the Wii. Web browsing on your TV - email, youtube, etc, all from your couch is pretty nice. the little channels, "votes" "mii" and upcoming channels "wii-preview" and "channel-guide" are things that a lot of people can get a handle on, understand and use without a service charge. We've got the Photo channel, the news channel and the weather channel as well.


I see your point of view because the 360 has all the features you want; but as a person out in the public dealing with questions from prospective console owners / console owners, I've got to say, a lot of them see just as much value in the Wii channels, as they would in the 360's features.

From your seat in the bleachers the 360 might have the inside lane, but to me, they're neck-n-neck. Its anybody's game now. I can't wait to see the 360 drop in price and increase its monthly sales to Wii levels...

Then things'll really start heating up.


(and I sorely hope that the Wii sales don't drop to 360 levels - thats not good for anyone - MS and SONY included)

[Ink Asylum]

(New post to avoid Wall O Text a little bit) :)

The problem I have with your fandom is that you don't see the faults with the controller or with the system. I come to Evil Avatar to talk games the way a sports fan might go to a football forum to talk about football. You're like the guy who is so far up the New England Patriot's ass that you can't imagine them losing and object any discussions that involve them that aren't pure praise. That's fine in this old thread that no one else is reading anymore, but the problem is that you often interject all this fandom into real discussions and a lot of people respond to the noise.

Yeah. I'm the only fanboy on EvilAvatar. The sole person that thinks the Wii has helped improve videogames. I'm happy to admit when Nintendo screws up. They made a lot of mistakes with the Gamecube. They still have a lot to learn about attracting 3rd parties. They need to get over their fear of online gaming. They need to develop more first party games that cater to older gamers that are turned off by cute graphics.

Look! I'm admitting faults! Should I go on? Ok.

The Wii is graphically inferior to the other systems. They really need to ditch the friend code system. The next Wiimote should be able to have true situational awareness, instead of relying on a triangulation system. They need to convince the casual gamers to buy more games, particularly more complicated games. They should have put more resources into increasing Wii production earlier. They should hire more small US developers like Retro to make games like Metroid Prime for the hardcore market. The Wiimote should have an internal rechargeable battery like the DS. The initial Wiimote straps really should have been thicker to begin with. They made the horrid Virtual Boy. They should've gone CD for the N64. They released a lot of weird and underutilized accessories during the Gamecube days, like the GC/GBA connector and the GBA Card Scanner. They need to bring back the Koopa Kids; Bowser Jr. sucks. They should put more voice into their games. They need to buck up and release a hard drive peripheral for the Wii before launching WiiWare. Virtual Console titles are too expensive compared to the ease of emulation. The Gamecube's library, outside of Nintendo titles, was very lacking.

Phew....If you'd like, I could also list what I like about Microsoft and Sony. I own a 360 and I owned the PS1, PS2, and Xbox. I personally bought more games for the PS2 than for any other system ever (except the PC). There's a lot to like coming out of both companies, and they do a lot of things better than Nintendo. However, it took two years, a couple of my personal must have titles, several price cuts, and a three year RROD warranty for me to feel the 360 purchase worthwhile. It will take a lot more than what Sony has so far produced for me to buy a PS3.

See, the problem you guys have with me isn't that I'm unable to find fault with Nintendo, it's that I don't hate the same things about them that you do. I have different opinions therefore you find it easier to dismiss me as a fanboy rather than recognize that not everyone thinks their console should be what you think it should be. Is it five year old technology and inferior graphics? Sure. I don't care. I still regularly play 10 year old PC games and PS1 title on my PS2. Graphics have never decided a game for me. I'm a graphic artist, I look for artistic design over technical finesse in whatever media I buy. In my mind the Katamari games have better graphics than the Call of Duty games. Team Fortress 2 has better graphics than Crysis. That is my opinion based on my own criteria for artistic merit, not technical specs.

The Wii's online sucks compared to Live and PSN? I don't care. I don't play console games online. All my real world friends game on the PC, so when I play online I play there. At least when the only game I want to play online on a console releases, Smash Bros Brawl, I'll be able to play it with a couple old Smash friends without paying $50 a year.

The Wii doesn't allow you to download TV shows or movies? I don't care. I don't watch TV and I prefer to own DVDs that I can watch on my computer or bring over to a friend's house without lugging along my console.

See? What are killer flaws for some people are not flaws to me. Nor are they flaws to the millions of non-gamers out there that will probably end up buying a Wii. Non-gamers think the Wii looks great, and wouldn't be able to tell you if Mario Galaxy or Uncharted is technically superior at a glance. Non-gamers aren't even thinking about playing games online. They want to play the game with their family, kids, or grandkids in the living room. Non-gamers already have DVD players or DVRs.

Alternately, what people dismiss as gimmicks and minor innovations, non-gamers find to be very attractive, namely the accessible Wiimote, the price point, and the many family and party games. Take an average consumer and start talking about all the features that the PS3 or 360 will eventually have, and their eyes will probably glaze over. Put a Wiimote in their hands for five minutes and they'll walk out the door with the box under their arm.

So basically, drop the fanboy crap. It's a lame term that has completely lost its meaning these days. I am more than willing to talk about dozens of things Nintendo has done wrong with the Wii, with previous systems, and probably will continue to do wrong in the future. I do not think they are perfect, and that the 360 and PS3 are worthless. I bought more Playstation 1 and 2 games than I bought N64 and Gamecube games, and my top ten console games include titles from all four consoles. A 360 game has even pushed into my top ten this year (Rock Band).

However, I will not fail to defend what the Wii has done well. I believe it to be a revolutionary product that has the potential to change videogaming for the better as much as the NES did. Nintendo has a proven history of innovation and its top brass include people that seriously want to improve what gaming is and can be. Sure, they want to make money doing it, too, but that doesn't stop all people from being truly creative.

You want to talk games like people talk about sports, bean? Fine, I can do that just as well as you can, but I'm going to bring up Nintendo products when I do, because anyone who has followed the history of gaming recognizes the effects their games and consoles have had on the industry, for good or ill, just like any talk about the history of baseball will eventually talk about the Yankees. I'm not always going to talk about them in a glowing light, I think I've proven I have a lot of gripes with the big N. Just because I think that, despite some fumbles, they had a spectacular season with the Wii doesn't mean they can do no wrong.

But hey, do you want me to commit the worst sin a "Nintendo Fanboy" can make? I can do that.

Nintendo might not win this generation. Oh shit! I said it! Nintendo has dropped the ball in the past, and they could possibly do that again. All the hype might die off and the new gamers will go back to being non-gamers again. The PS3 might sell like hotcakes as soon as it hits the magic price point. Japan could be wiped out with a tsunami. But my predicting Nintendo will win this generation is no more ridiculous than PS3/360 fans predicting their console will win. It's all reading the tea leaves, and no one is going to know how it will all come down for a few more years.

But if you come into a baseball game in the fifth inning, who are you going to bet on to win? The team with more points? Probably.

[Jack B]

ah, i thought last gen the gamecube grabbed about 30%. half of that. hm, thats pretty terrible.

Yeah, the Gamecube really struggled. The Wii was an awesome turnaround. The DS was a breakout success as well.

TV/Movies through your Xbox sounds pretty cool - it'd be like a TiVo then, wouldn't it? You'd have to pay per month, but I'm sure that there are some willing to do that.

Yeah, it's going to depend on price, selection of IPTV/Media Center programming and availability (ie not all cities will have it at launch).

I don't think anyone (cept for people who don't like to make sense) is calling the race yet... we're just being optimistic/pessimistic etc... we've all got our bets riding on our horses and we want the best for our wager!

Glad we agree, but there are some who have started to claim a runaway victory based upon the Wii's incredible 1st year.

The 360 has a rich feature-set that many might desire - but so does the Wii. Web browsing on your TV - email, youtube, etc, all from your couch is pretty nice. the little channels, "votes" "mii" and upcoming channels "wii-preview" and "channel-guide" are things that a lot of people can get a handle on, understand and use without a service charge. We've got the Photo channel, the news channel and the weather channel as well.

Yeah, I think Nintendo is going down the right track, but I just don't think there heart is in it to deliver very much multimedia content. I do really like the web browser idea and I really think Microsoft should counter.

I see your point of view because the 360 has all the features you want; but as a person out in the public dealing with questions from prospective console owners / console owners, I've got to say, a lot of them see just as much value in the Wii channels, as they would in the 360's features.

No question. I see neighbors who want to buy the Wii for their 4-7 year old kids, but those buyers won't be buying a lot of software. The 360/PS3 plan is to sell to hardcore gamers who do buy lots of software and entice the non-gamer with media features. It's a pretty good plan IMO, because the market for cable/satellite TV, Movies, Music distribution is bigger than for the casual/simple gamer, IMO.

The market valuations of companies in those spaces. The living room has huge dollars in it. I spend over $160 a month on Cable/Movies and another $15 for music (Zune). That's over $2,000 a year or $10,000 for 5 years. Most people have cable and watch/rent movies. That's the bigger market. Gamers can enter the market that way too. It's just a different approach, but it still brings in new gamers. Software companies just want gaming hardware in the hands of more consumers with more money. Ubisoft doesn't care how it happens.

From your seat in the bleachers the 360 might have the inside lane, but to me, they're neck-n-neck. Its anybody's game now. I can't wait to see the 360 drop in price and increase its monthly sales to Wii levels...

Then things'll really start heating up.

(and I sorely hope that the Wii sales don't drop to 360 levels - thats not good for anyone - MS and SONY included)


Yeah, the 360/PS3 still have to prove they can get into the living room. The Wii has proven it can attract casual gamers. However, things will change quickly this generation, so no one can say for sure who will come out on top.

The 360 and PS3 will reach Wii levels and lower at some point as the Wii drops to $99. I see a $149 price point for the 360 premium by generations end with the PS3 at about $249 or so.

[bean19]

There are several long and interesting points that I have to make now that Chameleo and Ink Asylum have shed some of the fanboyerry and are talking like gaming fans rather than JUST Nintendo fans. . . but I'm drunk. So I'll just bullet point them:

1. Ink Asylum - I'm annoyed by all fanboys. Other fanboys on Evil Avatar do not make you less annoying. They are equally annoying. I'm sure I often come off as a 360 fanboy, and that this can be annoying to you. The difference, I think, is that I constantly and rigorously call Microsoft on their bullshit and never downplay it. Right now, I think the 360 is the best machine for a gamer if you can only afford one next-gen system, but I will own all of them eventually. I'm honestly a gamer more than anything else and I always own every system by the end of each console cycle.

2. So you admit that the Wii-mote has some problems. I also admit that it is cool and innovative (and have throughout this thread). It's not about coming together though. . . the point I was making is about WHY the Wii is successful. . . and it is MEGA successful and will continue being successful (also things I never contested). The reason it was successful is not just because it's fun as you have oversimplified, it's because the system is 1) affordable to the mass-market, 2) has a controller that is perceived as easy to use, and 3) is made by a company that is beloved (strong image).

The actual fun that people have playing the Wii is what keeps them from shucking it or talking shit about it, and there are a number of good titles on the system. However, there are a lot of gamers who have bought a Wii, played all the games on it, and are now reselling it on Ebay (for profit), or simply letting it collect dust while they wait for more games. In all of these cases though, everyone (but crazies) admits that they've had fun with it. . . that there were games that were fun on the system. The fun that they have with the system helps. It is a factor. However, it just isn't the prime factor that you insist it is. On the contrary, it is a tertiary factor that is more defensive of the corporate image than "offensive". Even the unsatisfied customers are not hateful towards the product.

I'm a former Wii owner and an extremely unsatisified customer, but even I, in all my cynicism and with all my different games on so many consoles to play, only have a few bad things to say about the Wii (not enough games, shitty online features, too expensive for 5-year old technology, and piss poor graphics). I readily acknowledge that despite these flaws, I had a good time with the Nintendo first-party titles and there are Wii experiences to be had this year that are worth buying a Wii. . . eventually. Unless you can play it at a friend's house instead. There aren't really that many games that are worth a dick on it, but there will be more, so you ought to buy one when you find one.

It's really interesting and says a lot about the importance of business acumen and corporate strategy that the Wii is doing so well. That stuff IS absolutely super-important and can obvioulsy make or break you. The "key" to this has always been the controoler. . . . los train of thought. . . going to bed. too much beer.

[Chameleo]

hm. well that about wraps that up.

i'm sure it won't be long till the whole Wii vs everyone discussion is ignited again....

[Ink Asylum]

There are several long and interesting points that I have to make now that Chameleo and Ink Asylum have shed some of the fanboyerry and are talking like gaming fans rather than JUST Nintendo fans. . . but I'm drunk. So I'll just bullet point them:

I appreciate you ditching the insulting fanboy moniker. Thanks.

1. Ink Asylum - I'm annoyed by all fanboys. Other fanboys on Evil Avatar do not make you less annoying. They are equally annoying. I'm sure I often come off as a 360 fanboy, and that this can be annoying to you. The difference, I think, is that I constantly and rigorously call Microsoft on their bullshit and never downplay it. Right now, I think the 360 is the best machine for a gamer if you can only afford one next-gen system, but I will own all of them eventually. I'm honestly a gamer more than anything else and I always own every system by the end of each console cycle.

I frequently call Nintendo on their bullshit, too, you just probably aren't seeing it because, as I explained before, the things I'm mostly frustrated with Nintendo about are mostly not what you have a problem with. See, when a group of strong fans of one system/company/game series (not fanboys) talk about it amongst themselves, they often do a ton of bitching, because they typically share similar frustrations. But when you go out into "public" and post in threads where, at least for Nintendo, you are in the minority, you're more likely to defend the company than bash them. There's no shortage of people on EvilAvatar that will bash Nintendo, the community as a whole strongly favors 360. So while I will acknowledge Nintendo's faults and not lie about anything, I see no reason to harp on them, everyone else does that already. Nintendo fans are like a big Italian family (Mario?). They will insult and bash each other and the family all day long, but if anyone from outside takes a shot at them, they band together instantly. A lot of fan bases are similar, without being fanboyish.

2. So you admit that the Wii-mote has some problems. I also admit that it is cool and innovative (and have throughout this thread). It's not about coming together though. . . the point I was making is about WHY the Wii is successful. . . and it is MEGA successful and will continue being successful (also things I never contested). The reason it was successful is not just because it's fun as you have oversimplified, it's because the system is 1) affordable to the mass-market, 2) has a controller that is perceived as easy to use, and 3) is made by a company that is beloved (strong image).

You say the controller is perceived as easy to use. Compared to other controllers, though, it is easy to use for the majority of games and is definitely the most accessible controller. It was specifically designed that way. It has its issues, but when grandma in a retirement home can pick it up and start playing, you have to recognize how intuitive and easy it is.

The actual fun that people have playing the Wii is what keeps them from shucking it or talking shit about it, and there are a number of good titles on the system. However, there are a lot of gamers who have bought a Wii, played all the games on it, and are now reselling it on Ebay (for profit), or simply letting it collect dust while they wait for more games. In all of these cases though, everyone (but crazies) admits that they've had fun with it. . . that there were games that were fun on the system. The fun that they have with the system helps. It is a factor. However, it just isn't the prime factor that you insist it is. On the contrary, it is a tertiary factor that is more defensive of the corporate image than "offensive". Even the unsatisfied customers are not hateful towards the product.

I agree that a lot of gamers have lost interest in the Wii. However, those types of gamers are usually the hardcore brand, and they are pretty much the only type of gamer that is going to be posting on this board. In general, you're not going to be hearing from the moms, previously-non-gamer-women, and old people on this site. They haven't lost interest, and while they do not play the system as much as the hardcore play their Xboxes, the Wii is now a valued item in their homes, enjoyed daily or weekly as a family activity or when friends stop by. That is why they own it. For a lot of the system's new buyers, the Wii replaces the closet full of board games every family has.

Few people, if any, in the gaming forums and journalism sites hear from that segment of Wii owners, so it's easy to forget or gloss over their opinions. Companies aren't missing it, though. EA now has a casual games department, and the President of that department had interesting things to say about this topic: ( http://kotaku.com/gaming/industry/ea-not-worried-about-casual-game-reviews-330779.php)

I get less concerned about game reviews because the casual gamers don't read any of those things...They're not swayed by a low score on IGN or a low score out of one of these gaming sites.

It's a little bit amusing, in that it's people reviewing games against measures that are important to core gamers yet are not important to casual gamers...The concept of a one-size-fits-all evaluation tool isn't as relevant...The measurement [of a game's appeal] for women aged 25 to 34 would more likely be whether or not they'd hang up on their girlfriend to play this game. 'Would you hang up a phone conversation for this game?' That'd probably be a truer measure for that target audience.

Anyway, I'm glad we're finding common ground and ditching the insults. Thanks for taking the high road.