You have this completely backwards. Nintendo is the "dinosaur" of the video gaming industry, Sony's only been around since the last 3 hardware cycles. Name brand is a vital part of any business, but more so with video games-- or do you think Nintendo just slaps on Mario-characters for the heck of it?
But by all means, please continue using a sluggish worldwide economy as some kind of proof that Sony will "go extinct" sometime soon, it pleases me to shine the light of logic you 'analyst'-types!
- Age does not make one a dinosaur, in my view. It was Nintendo that broke with the status quo and created the Wii, and has experienced massive success out of that. Companies are composed of people, they do not get old of themselves, but they can get set in their ways. Nintendo's Miyamoto is an eternal youth, who's way of life is to look at everything in a new way. He is the heart of Nintendo and the heart of its success in gaming. Apart from that, Nintendo has been around a very long time, you're right, over 100 years, and that has taught them a lot of lessons about how to do business and how risky vs. conservative to be. These are lessons Sony has not learned, and despite their success their approach has not been ultimately successful and their name is declining in every sector they used to lead. Sony's way was to muscle its way into every industry and dominate, but you can't do that in every market, nor all the time, they've failed to adapt.
Name brand is vital, sure, but only if your name is good. If you brand gets a bad rep, you're done for if you're relying on your name brand. When I go to buy electronics I actually avoid the Sony label. So, name brand can work against you also. Why buy a Sony camera when they try to lock you into some BS proprietary memory stick, same for MP3 players, etc., etc. Sony has a horrible reputation in such industries. Geeks worldwide are still pissed at Sony for actually putting a -rootkit- on a music CD! Many swore off ever buying Sony again at that time. So, your brand is important, yes, but only if you care for it and preserve what it means. When your brand-name becomes a hindrance your company is not long from this world.
The problem is that Sony has been relying on the goodwill of the Sony brand to both sell inferior product and charge more than their competitors for it. This situation cannot last in a free market, and it's not lasting. Samsung, Panasonic, and many others have stepped in and have made great headway into former Sony bulwarks, like consumer electronics, music, gaming, etc. And I didn't say anything about the world-economy, a good company will survive just about anything, my claim is more along the lines of saying that Sony is not a good company - anymore. They were once a good company, but they are approaching the current market with the same strategies that worked in the past, but don't work anymore. That makes them a dinosaur, unable to change in response to a changing market and conditions. The PS3 is the PS2 on steroids, and even putting in Bluray was a copy of putting in DVD play for the PS2. There's nothing new there. The market was hungry for what Nintendo offered, however, and they completely failed to read that.
Meanwhile, Nintendo has shown incredible fidelity in adapting to market conditions. It doesn't put out sh!t that's unprofitable and doesn't have a place in the market. Nintendo would never create a 'Playstation Home'-style software. It's answer was the Wii start screen, making its various services into 'channels'. This accomplishes what Home is supposed to, and in a far, far more effective manner. Once again it's check and mate for Sony.
Ahh, looks like my 'logic' proximity mine has exploded into some good-old-fashioned forum pontification!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
- Age does not make one a dinosaur, in my view. It was Nintendo that broke with the status quo and created the Wii, and has experienced massive success out of that.
I would hardly call the Nintendo Wii an example of "breaking with the status quo". The majority of their top selling games are 1st party titles-- exactly like the Gamecube before it, and the N64 before that. Even 'Wii Fit' can ultimately be traced back to the NES 'Power Pad' peripheral.
Their success has very little to do with 'revolutionizing the games industry', and much to do with great marketing/brand name appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Companies are composed of people, they do not get old of themselves, but they can get set in their ways. Nintendo's Miyamoto is an eternal youth, who's way of life is to look at everything in a new way. He is the heart of Nintendo and the heart of its success in gaming. Apart from that, Nintendo has been around a very long time, you're right, over 100 years, and that has taught them a lot of lessons about how to do business and how risky vs. conservative to be. These are lessons Sony has not learned, and despite their success their approach has not been ultimately successful and their name is declining in every sector they used to lead. Sony's way was to muscle its way into every industry and dominate, but you can't do that in every market, nor all the time, they've failed to adapt.
Much of the Nintendo love you show in that last block of text made me wonder how objective you're looking at the games industry. The N64 was a commercial failure-- the PSX was a success. The Gamecube was a commercial failure-- the PS2 continues to put up respectable (though declining) hardware/software sales to this day, nearly a decade after being introduced onto the market. It's impossibly fallacious to think that Nintendo's got an infallible record of success concerning business tactics, and that Sony's only been "getting lucky" up until the PS3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Name brand is vital, sure, but only if your name is good. If you brand gets a bad rep, you're done for if you're relying on your name brand. When I go to buy electronics I actually avoid the Sony label. So, name brand can work against you also. Why buy a Sony camera when they try to lock you into some BS proprietary memory stick, same for MP3 players, etc., etc. Sony has a horrible reputation in such industries. Geeks worldwide are still pissed at Sony for actually putting a -rootkit- on a music CD! Many swore off ever buying Sony again at that time. So, your brand is important, yes, but only if you care for it and preserve what it means. When your brand-name becomes a hindrance your company is not long from this world.
Funny, when I go to buy electronics I research, and buy the best product on the market regardless of anything else. I suspect most consumers behave like I do, instead of purchasing crappier products to avoid "selling out" to a company they hold a grudge against. Considering the current state of the music industry (in that it's pretty much dead now), looking back on the rootkit fiasco seems like more an example of "adapting to changing marketplace conditions" than anything else. Ironic, considering your next paragraph:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
The problem is that Sony has been relying on the goodwill of the Sony brand to both sell inferior product and charge more than their competitors for it. This situation cannot last in a free market, and it's not lasting. Samsung, Panasonic, and many others have stepped in and have made great headway into former Sony bulwarks, like consumer electronics, music, gaming, etc. And I didn't say anything about the world-economy, a good company will survive just about anything, my claim is more along the lines of saying that Sony is not a good company - anymore. They were once a good company, but they are approaching the current market with the same strategies that worked in the past, but don't work anymore. That makes them a dinosaur, unable to change in response to a changing market and conditions. The PS3 is the PS2 on steroids, and even putting in Bluray was a copy of putting in DVD play for the PS2. There's nothing new there. The market was hungry for what Nintendo offered, however, and they completely failed to read that.
First of all, anybody who claims the Sony PS3 is an inferior product to either the Wii or the 360 is daft. Not saying you did this intentionally, but there should be no question which console of the three is the best engineered hardware, hands down.
Secondly, I'll be interested in knowing by what metric you're basing your claim that Sony is no longer a 'good' company on. They're reusing old market strategies that no longer work today, you say? So you're telling me that the PSOne, and the PS2 were loaded with cutting-edge technology, and were sold at a loss in the face of cheaper gaming alternatives, while simultaneously staking an enormous commitment to their entire company's future with the games industry?
Because I would disagree 100%-- it's clear to me and most gamers around the world that Sony took the biggest risk this gen, not MS, and certainly not Nintendo. You trivialize the entire decision of Sony opting to place Blu-ray into their console-- it wasn't a simple matter of "Oh, it worked with the PS2 and DVD, lets keep the lo-co-motioning!"
No. Sony has a well-documented love-hate relationship with format wars (BetaMax vs VHS), and putting Blu-ray into their PS3 was a calculated, ballsy risk that fortunately paid off for them. It was by no means an easy, or a 'copout' decision to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Meanwhile, Nintendo has shown incredible fidelity in adapting to market conditions. It doesn't put out sh!t that's unprofitable and doesn't have a place in the market. Nintendo would never create a 'Playstation Home'-style software. It's answer was the Wii start screen, making its various services into 'channels'. This accomplishes what Home is supposed to, and in a far, far more effective manner. Once again it's check and mate for Sony.
Well, don't feel like you have to censor the word "shit," newbie (As you use the great power with great responsibility ). And again, Nintendo has a track record of unprofitable hardware (VirtuaBoy waves "hi"), so I'm hoping your next response comes without the rose-colored shades on. It's true that Nintendo's Wii is a great success and will most likely go down in history as the most popular gaming console (at least until the next hardware cycle.) But let's not confuse success with quality-- the Wii's online presence is a joke compared to either Sony or Microsoft's offerings. I can name a dozen games on either the PS3/360 that are a blast to play with online mulitplayer support. Can you do the same with the Wii?
You won't find successful third party titles like BioShock, Fallout 3, or the CoD series on a Wii. In my opinion, this is just one of the many ways Nintendo has dropped the ball this gen. Sure, they've successfully catered to the majority of money-spending consumers-. But in the process they've lost the one demographic that matters-- the gamers. That's just bad business, no matter how you look at it.
I would hardly call the Nintendo Wii an example of "breaking with the status quo". The majority of their top selling games are 1st party titles-- exactly like the Gamecube before it, and the N64 before that. Even 'Wii Fit' can ultimately be traced back to the NES 'Power Pad' peripheral.
Their success has very little to do with 'revolutionizing the games industry', and much to do with great marketing/brand name appeal.
- You're just muddying the waters. I kept my argument limited to the hardware front and your only avenue is to critique software - therefore you've lost the argument. On the Wii hardware, which has variously been described as 'revolutionary', 'industry-changing', etc., a claim that Nintendo hasn't broken with the status quo is not credible. Furthermore, games designed with the Wii interface are unlike any ever seen before in the console realm, allow new kinds of interaction previously not possible, and are clearly pointing the way towards the future of interactive content. This is clear by the signs that Microsoft is planning a Wii-like interface for their next generation, and Sony would be a fool not to do so likewise. The games industry will never be the same after the Wii, all development and consoles from now on will mark the Wii as a predecessor, it's now the Sony Walkman of 3D interface, and all of this has been said before me. How exactly is that relying on marketing and brand name appeal? Nintendo revolutionized interface and hardware design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
The N64 was a commercial failure-- the PSX was a success. The Gamecube was a commercial failure-- the PS2 continues to put up respectable (though declining) hardware/software sales to this day, nearly a decade after being introduced onto the market. It's impossibly fallacious to think that Nintendo's got an infallible record of success concerning business tactics, and that Sony's only been "getting lucky" up until the PS3.
- The N64 was not, actually, a commercial failure. Problem here is that you're ignorant of the financial data behind the consoles. The N64 was a net money-maker for Nintendo. On that basis it was more successful than the PS3 is for Sony. The Gamecube, likewise, was a net money-maker. Neither console was a make-it-or-break-it proposition. Neither was the top selling hardware either, but, looking back, Nintendo has made many such statements that competing on the basis of bigger-better-faster was not going to move the industry forward and with the Wii we can understand that statement finally. When Nintendo finally broke through and revealed the Wii everyone was shocked.
Before the revelation there was a great deal of speculation on what the Wii controller would be. There were contests, mock-ups, depictions, fakes, and so many radical designs proposed - and not even one of them came close. I was one of those who speculated and was way off the mark also. More buttons was not the answer. Meanwhile, Sony built the much denigrated 'boomerang' and even though it was a BETTER CONTROLLER in every way than the dual, with users saying it was more comfortable, easier to use, etc., Sony bowed to the pressure of people who didn't like how it looked. In my mind, Sony lost leadership in the console wars on that day. So at the very least Nintendo was never stupid enough to bet the company on a single console, and it lived through two successive unpopular consoles by surviving on the Gameboy, a product which later would also be revolutionized in the form of the Nintendo DS, which has defeated every comer in all of its incarnations since day one. Making good business decisions: Nintendo has it. Need I remind you that Nintendo is the largest, most profitable company in Japan now, and Sony is struggling to survive.
Nintendo has said for a long time that we can't keep making consoles more of a geek thing, keep adding more buttons to controllers and thereby making it harder for new people to pick-up the controller and get into it. They were right, and the Wii has proved it. Nintendo has massively enlargened the industry and has likely headed off another Atari fiasco with the industry collapsing on itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Funny, when I go to buy electronics I research, and buy the best product on the market regardless of anything else. I suspect most consumers behave like I do, instead of purchasing crappier products to avoid "selling out" to a company they hold a grudge against. Considering the current state of the music industry (in that it's pretty much dead now), looking back on the rootkit fiasco seems like more an example of "adapting to changing marketplace conditions" than anything else.
- Most consumers will also avoid company's that have burned them before. You're actually saying that the rootkit fiasco is an example of adapting to the marketplace? No. That's the exact opposite of adapting to the marketplace. Sony has always tried to lock users into their format and the rootkit fiasco is another symptom of Sony/BMG's attempt to DRM their music to death in yet another anti-consumer practice. Adapting to the marketplace is when you do something and its successful in the marketplace, not when it becomes worldwide news, forces you to publicly apologize, have a class-action suit filed against you, be forced to recall millions of CDs, reissue those CDs for free, and raise the ire of millions around the world by essentially placing a hacking tool on consumer's computer. You sir are funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
First of all, anybody who claims the Sony PS3 is an inferior product to either the Wii or the 360 is daft. Not saying you did this intentionally, but there should be no question which console of the three is the best engineered hardware, hands down.
- 'Inferior' is decided by the marketplace, not by the silicon. So, sure, the PS3 has technical excellence, but the marketplace has still vastly chosen the Wii over it. Clearly technical excellence alone is not the consumer's highest value. Go learn you some 'conomics. If the PS3 had the same price as the Wii it would probably be a market-success, who knows. So, the total offering of the PS3 is a failure in the marketplace. Not the hardware alone, but it's pricing, marketing, release timing, etc. But my point in saying that wasn't just the PS3 but every other product that Sony manufactures, especially their consumer electronics and television businesses which are struggling mightily and without which Sony may not be able to survive, just as with the gaming business. In many of these businesses Sony puts out inferior product and also charges 10% more than the best product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Secondly, I'll be interested in knowing by what metric you're basing your claim that Sony is no longer a 'good' company on. They're reusing old market strategies that no longer work today, you say? So you're telling me that the PSOne, and the PS2 were loaded with cutting-edge technology, and were sold at a loss in the face of cheaper gaming alternatives, while simultaneously staking an enormous commitment to their entire company's future with the games industry?
- Easy, how about the fact that they're on the edge of bankruptcy. They completely misread the gaming industry and tried to do the same thing in our industry that they've done in others, which is to say, "We're SONY, so you must buy our product which is both technologically iffy and more expensive than the competition". You have to admit, if you know anything about the Cell processor, that its codename is ' The Conceit of Kutaragi'. If that graphics processor hadn't been put into the PS3 at the last minute, the X360 would've beaten the PS3 graphics, and graphics programmers probably would've preferred suicide to working a PS3 project. And please tell Sony to stop talking about the 10 year console life-cycle, it's BS too. No one produces new games for a console once the next generation comes along. So if it takes 10 years to wring out all the performance then you're shooting yourself in the foot when console generations are 5-6 years tops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Because I would disagree 100%-- it's clear to me and most gamers around the world that Sony took the biggest risk this gen, not MS, and certainly not Nintendo. You trivialize the entire decision of Sony opting to place Blu-ray into their console-- it wasn't a simple matter of "Oh, it worked with the PS2 and DVD, lets keep the lo-co-motioning!"
No. Sony has a well-documented love-hate relationship with format wars (BetaMax vs VHS), and putting Blu-ray into their PS3 was a calculated, ballsy risk that fortunately paid off for them. It was by no means an easy, or a 'copout' decision to make.
- Hardly, I can't believe you're saying that. Sony took the least risk! They're only concern was to hold on to what they had! To do that they made the PS2.5. Absolutely nothing new about it, just more this, more that, nothing new. Now, they took such a conservative strategy because they feared losing their market dominance. Meanwhile, Nintendo had nothing to lose, really. They, wisely again, made the Wii to succeed and be profitable for them even if it was only as popular as N64/Cube. They're strategy did not -require- them to be #1. But Sony's strategy did -require- them to be #1. Sony risked the company because they had no choice and were already facing bankruptcy, and this was after being the dominant company for two hardware generations? That's straight mismanagement. Thus Kutaragi being fired.
How did putting Bluray in pay-off for them anyway? They put in a damn expensive part which they have to pay other companies royalties to install, they were nearly a year late to the market because of a shortage of blue-diode lasers resulting in MS getting a massive hold of the market in Sony's absence, and since Bluray is only an incremental improvement over DVD, not a massive improvement like DVD over VHS was (not to mention that most people don't own HDTVs) and what you've got is something that would've been more appropriate in the PS4 than the PS3. It's perfectly clear that Sony put Bluray in to attempt to position the PS3 the same way the PS2 was, that people would buy it to get the player and both cement that format as well as increase the gaming market for their games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
And again, Nintendo has a track record of unprofitable hardware (VirtuaBoy waves "hi"), so I'm hoping your next response comes without the rose-colored shades on. It's true that Nintendo's Wii is a great success and will most likely go down in history as the most popular gaming console (at least until the next hardware cycle.) But let's not confuse success with quality-- the Wii's online presence is a joke compared to either Sony or Microsoft's offerings. I can name a dozen games on either the PS3/360 that are a blast to play with online mulitplayer support. Can you do the same with the Wii?
You won't find successful third party titles like BioShock, Fallout 3, or the CoD series on a Wii. In my opinion, this is just one of the many ways Nintendo has dropped the ball this gen. Sure, they've successfully catered to the majority of money-spending consumers-. But in the process they've lost the one demographic that matters-- the gamers. That's just bad business, no matter how you look at it.
- From a business perspective, Nintendo is doing the right thing with their online strategy. They've said again and again that they haven't yet seen how to make any money going online. Well, with Wii they have finally changed that around a bit. Nintendo also feels that online should not be the main draw of a game, knowing, wisely, that online games are more suited to computer-games anyway. WoW will never be on a console, etc., etc.
As for the Virtual-boy, sure it didn't succeed and they pulled it just as fast, but it was never a console, it was alongside the SNES. It can also be seen as the forerunner to the Gameboy, as they are both projects of Gunpei Yokoi. I wouldn't be surprised if they still made money on the VB when it comes down to it, that's just how Nintendo rolls. I've been able to demo the unit a few times, that thing was pretty sweet. Have you seen the virtual 3D headtracking using the Wii, that is the future right there, man. Watch this and be blown away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
As for Bioshock, Fallout, etc., (Wii launched with CoD tho, check your facts), Nintendo owns the most profitable sector of the industry: kids 5-13. And so it produces games for that segment, games in the rated:G department. This is a simple business decision, everyone can enjoy a G game, few can enjoy an R game. Same goes for the movie industry, some of the most financially successful movies of all time are rated:G, and many rated:R are financial failures and considered risky by producers.
Japanese electronic major Sony today said it expects to post a whopping operating loss of 260 billion yen (about $2.92 billion) for the fiscal year 2009, primarily due to plunging sales and appreciating yen.
The company, which has announced plans to axe 16,000 jobs to tackle the economic downturn, would be posting an operating loss, reportedly for the first time in 14 years.
Interestingly, in October last year, Sony projected an operating income of 200 billion yen for the fiscal year 2009.
In a statement today, it said that the sales and operating income are expected to be significantly lower mainly on account of "a deterioration in the business environment as a result of the global economic slowdown, the continued appreciation of the yen, the impact from the decline in the Japanese stock market and an increase in expected restructuring charges".
Further, Sony has projected a net loss of 150 billion yen for the fiscal year 2009 whereas the firm in October, had expected to post a net income of 150 billion yen for the same period.
Meanwhile, for the third quarter ended December 31, 2008, Sony anticipates the net income to plunge 95 per cent to 10 billion yen. The firm had a net income of 200.2 billion yen in the corresponding period a year ago.
Sony's sales and operating revenue for the third quarter is projected to fall 25 per cent to 2,150 billion yen. The company's sales and operating revenue in the year-ago period stood at 2,859 billion yen.
In December, the company had said it would slash 8,000 full time jobs, representing five per cent of its global workforce, besides laying off another estimated 8,000 temporary workers.
Earlier, the electronics giant had said that it would reduce the total number of manufacturing sites by 10 per cent from the current total of 57 by March 31, 2010.
------------------
Ouch, 95% less income in fall '08, that's pretty crazy. And, may I remind you, 3 billion dollars is 3,000 million dollars. So, they basically made no money in the last quarter of '08, they barely broke even. There's not going to be a miraculous turn-around for the PS3, it's not going to save them in '09. I think we may see the breakup of Sony in '09 or '10.
- You're just muddying the waters. I kept my argument limited to the hardware front and your only avenue is to critique software - therefore you've lost the argument.
While it's good to have confidence in yourself, it's pretty silly to declare yourself the "winner" by rejecting my points and refusing to respond to them. Last time I checked, the Wii Fit board was hardware, not software-- and the second best-selling item for Nintendo (Wii Play) is most definitely not software either.
The point I made (which you've yet to provide any rebuttal for) is that the Wii is more of a "Gamecube 2.5" in terms of features than the PS3 is a "PS2.5" by any form of measurement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
On the Wii hardware, which has variously been described as 'revolutionary', 'industry-changing', etc., a claim that Nintendo hasn't broken with the status quo is not credible. Furthermore, games designed with the Wii interface are unlike any ever seen before in the console realm, allow new kinds of interaction previously not possible, and are clearly pointing the way towards the future of interactive content. This is clear by the signs that Microsoft is planning a Wii-like interface for their next generation, and Sony would be a fool not to do so likewise. The games industry will never be the same after the Wii, all development and consoles from now on will mark the Wii as a predecessor, it's now the Sony Walkman of 3D interface, and all of this has been said before me. How exactly is that relying on marketing and brand name appeal? Nintendo revolutionized interface and hardware design.
Nintendo created a highly-marketable, gimmick form of motion control. This is great, but it's hardly "revolutionary", especially considering the lack of any applicable software titles that create new gaming experiences for gamers. Name any game that can only be played on the Wii, and not just as easily using the PS3 controller's motion sensor. Name any best-selling game that actually uses the Wiimote's motion sensing as an integral part of the gameplay (and not as a gimmicky alternative option for control). I really wish the Wii WERE more revolutionary, but the only reality here is that many people (yourself included) are being sold on the Wii's potential vs. what the Wii's actually delivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
The N64 was not, actually, a commercial failure. Problem here is that you're ignorant of the financial data behind the consoles. The N64 was a net money-maker for Nintendo. On that basis it was more successful than the PS3 is for Sony.
The N64 sold the least amount of hardware, software, and was routinely left out of Saturn/PSX multiplatform titles due to a cumbersome cartridge format. You keep believing that it's my ignorance of the console's history, and not your bias at work here.
In any case, Sony's PS3 was certainly successful in ushering in the Blu-ray era, over the HD-DVD one that was another possibility. This is future credit for Sony, in a time when their future success lies upon being able to bank on things like a monopoly on high-definition formats for home video/tv series collections/etc. In this way, I can quite confidently claim that the PS3 is a "net moneymaker" for Sony, and will continue to be for as long as the Blu-ray market continues to mature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Before the revelation there was a great deal of speculation on what the Wii controller would be. There were contests, mock-ups, depictions, fakes, and so many radical designs proposed - and not even one of them came close. I was one of those who speculated and was way off the mark also. More buttons was not the answer.
Your habit of focusing on the Wiimote just reinforces my point about there being nothing truly "revolutionary" about the Wii console itself. They've sold you on a gimmick, and I'm sorry you think that alone makes your case for you. But it proves nothing, save the fact that Nintendo knew exactly how to tap into the "iPod generation" with the Wiimote's design.
To put it another way, your hard on for the Wiimote is similar to my 10-year old step-sister telling me definitively that Miley Cyrus is the "most talented singer of all time!" It's cute, funny, and even understandable for her to have that opinion somewhat but laughably incorrect on so many levels!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Nintendo has said for a long time that we can't keep making consoles more of a geek thing, keep adding more buttons to controllers and thereby making it harder for new people to pick-up the controller and get into it. They were right, and the Wii has proved it. Nintendo has massively enlargened the industry and has likely headed off another Atari fiasco with the industry collapsing on itself.
This is a blatant way that Nintendo fanboys excuse the Wii for being technologically inferior to the PS3/360 consoles. It's a silly argument-- if Nintendo were more concerned with revolutionizing the industry than the bottom dollar, there wouldn't be as many casual games, G-rated content, and otherwise unimpressive software littering the console's lackluster library. They haven't created a higher quality of video gaming entertainment-- what they have created will probably go down in history as the worst thing to happen to the industry since Atari's early consoles failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
'Inferior' is decided by the marketplace, not by the silicon. So, sure, the PS3 has technical excellence, but the marketplace has still vastly chosen the Wii over it. Clearly technical excellence alone is not the consumer's highest value. Go learn you some 'conomics.
Just....no. You misspoke when you called the PS3 an 'inferior product', and the original comment certainly had nothing to do with economics. Yet now you're changing your earlier stance on how the N64 wasn't a 'commercial failure' due to the net revenue it generated by claiming that only the marketplace gets to decide on inferiority. You can't have it both ways, brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Easy, how about the fact that they're on the edge of bankruptcy. They completely misread the gaming industry and tried to do the same thing in our industry that they've done in others, which is to say, "We're SONY, so you must buy our product which is both technologically iffy and more expensive than the competition". You have to admit, if you know anything about the Cell processor, that its codename is ' The Conceit of Kutaragi'. If that graphics processor hadn't been put into the PS3 at the last minute, the X360 would've beaten the PS3 graphics, and graphics programmers probably would've preferred suicide to working a PS3 project. And please tell Sony to stop talking about the 10 year console life-cycle, it's BS too. No one produces new games for a console once the next generation comes along. So if it takes 10 years to wring out all the performance then you're shooting yourself in the foot when console generations are 5-6 years tops.
Sony is hardly on the edge of bankruptcy, and considering several companies actually HAVE filed for bankruptcy during the recession (and are receiving government bailouts) it's a testament to the strength of the company to be able to continue doing day-to-day business as usual. If you hate the phrase '10-year-console-cycle', then I suspect it's because you've already gotten bored with your Nintendo Wii, as the only game anyone ever plays on that is the boxed-in 'Wii Sports' title. Imagine playing that game 10 years from now, still talking about how "revolutionary" the Wii is, and how game-changing it's release was for the industry!!
In other words, you must be fucking high trying to get away with saying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
How did putting Bluray in pay-off for them anyway? They put in a damn expensive part which they have to pay other companies royalties to install, they were nearly a year late to the market because of a shortage of blue-diode lasers resulting in MS getting a massive hold of the market in Sony's absence, and since Bluray is only an incremental improvement over DVD, not a massive improvement like DVD over VHS was (not to mention that most people don't own HDTVs) and what you've got is something that would've been more appropriate in the PS4 than the PS3. It's perfectly clear that Sony put Bluray in to attempt to position the PS3 the same way the PS2 was, that people would buy it to get the player and both cement that format as well as increase the gaming market for their games.
You answered your own question! Blu-ray will be around for at least 10 years, probably more seeing as how HD-adoption rates (for TVs and media) haven't even come close to hitting a stride yet. It's guaranteed money for Sony, and none for anybody else that didn't want to gamble/opted to go with HD-DVD instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
From a business perspective, Nintendo is doing the right thing with their online strategy. They've said again and again that they haven't yet seen how to make any money going online. Well, with Wii they have finally changed that around a bit. Nintendo also feels that online should not be the main draw of a game, knowing, wisely, that online games are more suited to computer-games anyway. WoW will never be on a console, etc., etc.
Once again, Nintendo has dropped the ball with the core gamer because of this mindset. If they honestly don't see the point in creating a quality online multiplayer presence it represents a serious disconnect between the company and what their customers are asking for. Smash Bros. Brawl would've been such a better game if the online content wasn't such a broken mess. Nowadays everybody is connected to the web, and it just plain sucks that they won't be able to take their passion for gaming on the web along with them (if they only own a Wii, that is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
As for the Virtual-boy, sure it didn't succeed and they pulled it just as fast, but it was never a console, it was alongside the SNES. It can also be seen as the forerunner to the Gameboy, as they are both projects of Gunpei Yokoi. I wouldn't be surprised if they still made money on the VB when it comes down to it, that's just how Nintendo rolls. I've been able to demo the unit a few times, that thing was pretty sweet.
As for Bioshock, Fallout, etc., (Wii launched with CoD tho, check your facts), Nintendo owns the most profitable sector of the industry: kids 5-13. And so it produces games for that segment, games in the rated:G department. This is a simple business decision, everyone can enjoy a G game, few can enjoy an R game. Same goes for the movie industry, some of the most financially successful movies of all time are rated:G, and many rated:R are financial failures and considered risky by producers.
Now you say something I can agree with. But in doing so your argument about the Wii being "revolutionary" buckles under the weight of it's own bullshit. There's nothing "revolutionary" about making games for kids who probably would be happy playing any crappy game with bright colors, flashing lights, and cheery sound effects. There's nothing "revolutionary" about having your major company decisions be based upon what can make you the most cash (aka, neverending sequels for 1st party franchises, and a blatant fear from risking the development of a new IP which has been Nintendo's modus operand for YEARS). There's nothing "revolutionary" about playing it "safe" with uninspired, 'blockbuster'-esque games without any online component, DLC, or really anything to keep gamers entertained past the intial 5 hours.
Nothing you've said in this thread has changed my belief on the Wii. A gamer who wants to be entertained, and have fun with their console would do well to make it a "secondary" purchase after getting a 360 or PS3 first and foremost.
- You're just muddying the waters. I kept my argument limited to the hardware front and your only avenue is to critique software - therefore you've lost the argument. On the Wii hardware, which has variously been described as 'revolutionary', 'industry-changing', etc., a claim that Nintendo hasn't broken with the status quo is not credible.
I hate to break it to you, but developing and marketing the console hardware is only half the battle. It's the software that has always helped drive consoles sales. Without quality software, consoles simply won't move...and I hate to say it, but the Wii doesn't really have anything to speak of in terms of quality software.
The simple fact that Wiisalesareslowing should do nothing but help verify this. The DS was built around the exact same principles and philosophies used during the Wii's creation and most would consider it the superior "console". Why, do you ask? It has one of the strongest libraries any console has ever seen. I own more DS games than I have for every other handheld I've owned combined, including multiple iterations of the Gameboy. My DS collection rivals that of my 360 and PS3 collections. The Wii is exactly like the DS in every regard...except for the library. It's lack of real games will ultimately hurt it. Just look at the sheer number of EvAv users alone who haven't used their Wii in months? Even I fall into that category; the last time my Wii was used for any great length of time was when Smash Bros. Brawl was released. I've clocked maybe five to ten hours on it in the past six months.
I sat in a parking lot for nine hours before the local K-Mart opened to ensure that I was the first one in line the day the Wii launched. My room mate and I arrived at the store at around 1:30am. I was the first one in line, I was the first one out of the surprisngly small crowd to get my hands on one. Even though I've owned a Wii since day 1, it's seen less overall use than my PS3, which I got six months ago. When I travel up to visit with my friends, I don't bring my Wii along for some fun multiplayer action on titles they haven't seen yet...that job rests solely on the shoulders of my PS3 and LittleBigPlanet. I don't spend hours playing Gears of War 2 or Left 4 Dead online with my friends on my Wii.
There's absolutely no denying how successful the Wii has been, in terms of hardware sales. Without question, Nintendo won that aspect of the "console war"...but they did it at the cost of quality games and the respect of the people who helped get them to where they are now. Folks like me who sat in a parting lot for hours on end to get my hands on a Gamecube back in 2001, who then repeated the same thing again in 2006. I used to love Nintendo and their products...but now I look at that Wii and see little more than disappointment.
Revolution my ass.
__________________
Quote:
Just saw someone in a fur coat walking a dog. "I love to take care of animals AND wear them!" If only they were holding a burger.
For those looking for an illustrative summation of the eloquent back-and-forths gracing this fine thread
TeeCakes:
vs.
Anenome:
Think about it.
Funny, many times I thought it the other way around. But then TeeCakes has his SDF passion behind him to fight the good fight so it always sounds more believable and convincing.
Just read through everything, and DAMN did it take a long time, but I have to say Anenome would be the winner of this argument. I have a Wii and haven't touched it in months and have no plans as to when I will use it again, but his statements, for the most part, ring true. If the Xbox 360 didn't exist, I would be primarily a PS3 player, as I believe the Wii sucks, but the facts are what they are.
Nintendo set themselves up for a Win-Win situation. They planned all along to sell the Wii hardware at a profit, and even if it were only as popular as the Gamecube, they would still be making money, with the DS as their primary money maker.
Sony, on the other hand, set themselves up with for failure by focusing more on features than on what made the Playstation name so strong: gaming. Biggest mistake was the forceful inclusion of the Blu-Ray to trojan horse their format into peoples homes. Expensive and unneccessary, as proven by the fact that the vast majority of 360 games are on a single disc. This skyrocketed the systems price. Then there was the fact they focused more on raw power than ease of use for development. This caused crappy ports or straight up dismissal of bringing a game to the PS3. Then there were the little things, such as forcing a wireless network adapter into the system, slightly raising the price on something that most people probably don't use, and many other trivial things that add up to a bunch of mistakes.
As for the Wii's sales declining, even if they are, they are still strong, and of course a systems sales will slow after selling so hot for so long. Every system from previous generation had its sales slow down, no matter how popular it was. That's what happens with any product. Once the people that really want it own it, the people that kind of want it go and buy it, then down the list until, at the end of it all, everybody that wants it has it.
Lovin' the even split down the middle between the "Nintendo killed Sony" camp and the "Sony's still alive and well" one in this thread! It's good to have such a robust-yet-civilized debate about next-gen consoles without any of the traditional craziness.
One other point I wanted to throw out there-- notice how Sony operated while it was the market leader (PSOne and PS2 eras). They certainly didn't rely on 1st party titles (hell, I don't think they even had any save Syphon Filter, and a few of the Square games they helped to produce). They consistently and reliably put out great games, month after month-- including casual titles like Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Singstar, etc. They didn't have to milk one particular gaming demographic (the kiddies) in order to stay profitable.
Ask yourself why Nintendo feels so pigeonholed with a 'superior' (in Anemone's words) product that they must only market to kids, and constantly forsake the gaming experiences that core gamers want to have. Sony's already shown that you can be profitable as the market leader by catering to everyone's tastes, so what gives? The way I see it, there's a few possibilities for Nintendo's unique strategy:
- Nintendo's console is gimped, compared to what 3rd party developers are used to pulling off on the 360/PS3 (online support, HD graphics, the fact that a gimmicky motion sensor controller isn't forced upon developers)
- Nintendo doesn't care about anything other than mo' money (I actually find this very doubtful, but then again why is the Wii still $250? It's crystal clear that the company is making more cash from Wii hardware sales than its software.)
- Nintendo wants to redefine their market. In other words, they'll market to fringe gamers, i.e. little kids just starting to get hooked video games, and moms/dads/grandparents/etc. that never picked up a controller before but have now that it's shaped like a nonthreatening remote controller. (This is the most likely, and quite frankly it leaves gamers from previous gens out in the cold since arguably we 'core gamers' have skunked Nintendo in the past with the Gamecube and N64.)
I just don't see how any of these possibilities equate to a gaming "revolution" at the hands of the Nintendo Wii. If anything, Wii's success threatens to veer the industry away from the mindset that games can = art. When a gaming console becomes just a theater of exhibitions to wow nongamers (that pretty much every person posting in this thread has said they haven't touched in months) you can't conceivably wish for the industry to move further in that direction with the next gen.
I personally don't think the wii is a revolution, I have one but my mom took it. I think it is a gimmick and Nintendo is dead to me THIS gen which is sad, but my 360 and ps3 soon have more than enough.
My small concern is regardless of the wii being a gimmick or not, it is selling like mad to moms around the world and there are alot of them, also the yuppie crowd that never played a game in their life, also a lot of them out there, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down either.
Its sad to me cause im concerned MS and SONY are going to go the wii route or try to next gen and if that happens all my money is going back to my pc.
I personally don't think the wii is a revolution, I have one but my mom took it. I think it is a gimmick and Nintendo is dead to me THIS gen which is sad, but my 360 and ps3 soon have more than enough.
My small concern is regardless of the wii being a gimmick or not, it is selling like mad to moms around the world and there are alot of them, also the yuppie crowd that never played a game in their life, also a lot of them out there, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down either.
Its sad to me cause im concerned MS and SONY are going to go the wii route or try to next gen and if that happens all my money is going back to my pc.
I hope this doesn't happen.
- This is the point, Tee. Your argument basically comes down to "PS3 is awesome for hardcore gamers" and I agree completely.
My argument could be summarized as "Wii has revitalized gaming among gamers who thought PS3/X360 were too complicated, and has whooped Sony and MS in the marketplace."
You make the argument that Sony's silicon is superior, and it's true. However, I counter that it's superiority hasn't made it more popular than the Wii, and that is certainly true.
In the end, the Wii has massively expanded the market FOR GAMES. People who would've never bought a system, or played a videogame if their options had only been PS3 or X360 are buying and playing Wii games, as DarkDay points out. Many more people who grew up with the NES bought the Wii to play Classic games and let their kids try the games they grew up on, etc.
I have to disagree with you on your comments about the Wii controller. Sixaxis technology cannot replace the Wii-mote, and if you understand the technical details behind how they work you would know why. The Sixaxis is far more limited in its functionality compared to the Wiimote, for the simple reason that it doesn't have a point of reference such as the Wii's IR-bar.
I'll leave you with this final note: over 50% of all the dollars spent in January '09 were spent on Nintendo products. Nintendo has already won this console generation in terms of dollars spent. Microsoft is experimenting with a wii-like interface, we know this from news reports, and you can bet that Sony will create one for the PS4.
So after all this time that you've been denigrating the Wii-mote, it'll be pretty funny when they unveil the Sony version of the Wii-mote when along with the PS4. There is no going back after the Wii-mote. It is the future of game interaction and the controller as we've known it will recede into oblivion, relegated to the status of an anachronism. And the reason is because 3D display is coming, yes even to televisions inside your home, and the only way to interact with 3D displays is with a 3D cursor / interface. And the way that that will be accomplished is with some variant of the Wii-mote. All such controllers in the future will be traced back to the Wii-mote as a pioneer. And no doubt the Sony and MS versions will feature more buttons, etc., but there it is, Nintendo was first, and it was a radical departure from the past, a helluva risky business move, and it paid off like never before. Nintendo pulled off a complete coup in this generation, kicking Sony off their throne and claiming it for themselves.
It's laughable that you claim that the PS3's great success is in establishing Blu-ray in the marketplace; as if that had anything to do with gaming at all.
Allow me to hand you a handkerchief to catch your tears as you witness the Jan. '09 sales figures for the three consoles. Nintendo sells more Wiis than PS3 and X360 combined, and then add in the DS on top of that and it's not even a close second (or third, since PS3 is in 3rd): http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/02/13/j...ps3-yet-again/
). And again, Nintendo has a track record of unprofitable hardware (VirtuaBoy waves "hi"), so I'm hoping your next response comes without the rose-colored shades on. It's true that Nintendo's Wii is a great success and will most likely go down in history as the most popular gaming console (at least until the next hardware cycle.) But let's not confuse success with quality-- the Wii's online presence is a joke compared to either Sony or Microsoft's offerings. I can name a dozen games on either the PS3/360 that are a blast to play with online mulitplayer support. Can you do the same with the Wii?
