[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1303860447' post='4803281']
In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
It really depends on the game. Wii's big games actually sell amazingly well.
[/quote]
True. But most of the time, those are first party games. Nintendo-made. I don't know of any third party game (on the Wii) that sold anywhere as well as SMB or Zelda on the Wii. But for a next-gen console, again, I was hoping for the next evolution of the Wiimote (ie. Power Glove + awesome). But I guess we'll see.
In terms of hardware sales, yeah the Wii is number one. In terms of software sales, is the Wii still crushing the competition? How about 3rd party support? What's the number of sales between Nintendo first party sales and third party sales?
Alpha_ProgDes, your original post was talking only about the console, not the games.
Yes, Nintendo's own games have topped the charts. In fact, some of their games stayed in the top ten across all consoles game sales for multiple years, compared to X360 or PS3 games that stay up for a few weeks or months at most. That is a lot of sales.
The fact that third party games have not done so well is not really Nintendo's fault. Nintendo knows their target market very well. They focus on them. They have shown by their own example that games CAN be good and generate tens of millions of sales, and they can reach and stay a the top the charts across (even compared against all platforms) for extended periods of time.
A few third-party Wii games have done very well in the marketplace, but many did not. The ones that succeed aren't FPS games, but rather are very polished cute, cuddly, or casual games that feel like toys. I know all of them from my studio have been rather profitable; they were very cute games focused on a part of the Wii demographic. But none were blockbusters nor did they target the full Wii demographics, and I believe these are related. The fact that the other publishers haven't competed well is mostly based on the issues with those developers not understanding the market.
The fact that third party games have not done so well is not really Nintendo's fault. Nintendo knows their target market very well. They focus on them. They have shown by their own example that games CAN be good and generate tens of millions of sales, and they can reach and stay a the top the charts across (even compared against all platforms) for extended periods of time.
That may not be entirely true. M$ and Sony both seem to do a much better job of publicizing their third party games above and beyond what the game's publishers do. Whenever I watch Nintendo press stuff it's always first party nintendo stuff with very little mention of any third party stuff, but Sony and Microsoft press announcements are full of third party promotion.
They also do a much better job of promoting their digital distribution services. I'm not sure if I've heard of anything selling remotely well on WiiWare, which has some pretty strict restrictions also.
Reaper, my point was that with you at the helm, I don't think that Nintendo would have launched the Wii. They would have made the Gamecube 2. You are focused on the way that games have been for a long time, which can be a successful strategy-- it's certainly worked for MS and Sony. But it's one where Nintendo was lagging, and badly. Even if they launched a current-gen console with comparable hardware to the other two consoles, how much of the market could they have gained? They'd be in a three way fight with nothing unique to offer, especially as games are increasingly cross-platform.
Nintendo went a different route. They introduced a novel experience, and were extremely successful with gamers and non-gamers alike. It was noted above that a lot of people who have an Xbox or PS3 also have a Wii, and that's a win for Nintendo. It doesn't matter how much people play the Wii, or if they have other consoles. All that matters is that they have the Wii, and buy new games for it.
Of course I noticed the difference between PS2 and 3, and Xbox and 360. The new consoles are better. But are they better to the same degree that the PS2 was to the PS1? As the Nintendo 64 to the Super Nintendo? Will these improvements bring in new gamers? It's likely that owners of current gen consoles will buy next gen as well, regardless of improvements, because that's where the new games will be.
My point about the controller/2D screen combo is that the games will be very similar to what has come before. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to attract new people to video games. If you liked Metal Gear Solid, you'll probably like Metal Gear Solid 4 and the latest Splinter Cell game. The majority of the gameplay is a repetition of what you've already had, except for a gimmick or two and the fact that it's prettier. A lot of people bought a Wii because it offered something new, and not the same old thing with fancier paint. Even if the games themselves are largely shallow experiences, Nintendo still sold a crapload of units, which is what their business actually relies on. You say that this strategy won't work twice. If that's the case, why would offering no innovation work a 3rd time (at least) for the other consoles?
You say that the increased power of new consoles will allow for better games, and then write off the actual factors those games might employ to utilize that increased power as unrelated to a console's success. If you don't see the relationship between games themselves and the success of a console in attracting peopel to buy it, then I'll do more than question your business skills.
If next gen consoles are all similarly powerful, and have largely the same library of games, why would a consumer buy one over the other? Especially if they all offer the same types of play experience? Catering to the hard core slices off the entire demographic that Nintendo built over the current console generation in order to compete in a crowded marketplace without much to disinguish themselves from the competition.
I think that your views are heavily colored by your own preferences in gaming. You seem to think that because the Wii didn't really offer the experiences you personally wanted, with the horsepower you found exciting, that it was a "last breath", despite outselling every other company and making more money per unit anyhow. You think that if Nintendo doesn't draw you personally in on their next console, that it can't be successful, even though the Wii was successful largely because it focused on something other than gamers like you. There are definitely places where Nintendo could improve, like 3rd party support and offering something to more hardcore gamers. But that doesn't mean that their business is doomed unless they jump back into a fight where they were in 3rd place for a long, long time.
Even if Nintendo can't duplicate the level of success with the Wii 2 that they had with the Wii, they can still stay in the game and not go the Sega route. And it may not take much innovation to keep the market segment that Nintendo created and cultivated-- we don't know anything about their long-term video game purchasing trends. You assert that innovation isn't really an important factor and that new innovations won't be effective, and that the only way for a console to be successful is to push more polygons. That's Sega-hardware thinking, and it fizzled on them. Not Wii-thinking, which was successful beyond the estimations of every analyst.
That may not be entirely true. M$ and Sony both seem to do a much better job of publicizing their third party games above and beyond what the game's publishers do. Whenever I watch Nintendo press stuff it's always first party nintendo stuff with very little mention of any third party stuff, but Sony and Microsoft press announcements are full of third party promotion.
The publishers pay for it, and it is expensive. They generally pay directly and negotiate cross-marketing deals.
A short marketing campaign across North America costs multiple millions of dollars. Games releasing in multiple territories can easily reach tens of millions for advertising.
Publishers don't think the Wii games will make a big profit, so they skimp on advertising. Less advertising results in lower sales. Lower sales results in lower profit, so companies are less willing to invest money. Wash and repeat.
The publishers who do understand the target market and who advertise appropriately tend to sell very well. At least, the four Wii games I've done we have done rather well, but I believe each involved a $3M-$5M advertising blitz. Our blitz focused on cute and cuddly targeting little girls and also targeting the of grown-up women-oriented community sites that were frequently covered in mismatched sparkling animated gifs and lots of animals with huge eyes. It is scary how many of those exist. We got high click-through and lots of positive feedback about our ads being super cute from a huge number of non-traditional gamers.
When publishers did spend the money they tended to focus on the wrong demographic for the Wii. They didn't understand their market. Again, I don't believe that is Nintendo's fault. The major publishers struggled to understand the demographic and lost a lot of money in the process. Then they reduced investments because they lost money. Consequently they did not do well.
The publishers pay for it, and it is expensive. They generally pay directly and negotiate cross-marketing deals.
A short marketing campaign across North America costs multiple millions of dollars. Games releasing in multiple territories can easily reach tens of millions for advertising.
I am talking about stuff like E3 press conferences or the tweets that M$ and Sony send out every day or the weekly blog posts they put out or the holiday season montages microsoft and sony put out or the promotion of betas and demos to get more people interested in games on their systems.
I very specifically avoided saying advertising for a reason.
A good example would be all the Kinect games shown at E3. I wasn't remotely interested in kinect, but microsoft showed 2 awesome looking third party games in Dance Central and Ubisoft's Your Shape Fitness that got me very interested. Then, I went out and told my family, "Yea there's a lot of gimmicky things, but check out these two games because they look AMAZING." The same for Children of Eden.
edit: the same for children of eden in that I told my family, not in that microsoft showed it.
I am talking about stuff like E3 press conferences or the tweets that M$ and Sony send out every day or the weekly blog posts they put out or the holiday season montages microsoft and sony put out or the promotion of betas and demos to get more people interested in games on their systems.
Microsoft and Sony (the latter especially) have weak first party studios. They need the third party studios and titles to validate their platforms in a way that Nintendo never has. The issue of third party titles is overblown by the "core" gamer audience and the bloggers that cater to them. I'm not sure it's a useful barometer of the overall health of the system at all.
Nintendo has been consistently profitable with its gaming products in ways that neither Microsoft nor Sony ever have been, and has had very few strategic miscues. If asked to bet on one of the system hardware vendors, I'd take Big N.
That said, this thread seems like a lot of speculation and conjecture over a system that hasn't been announced and nothing concrete is known about. Wait until E3 in June, then start the carping.
That said, this thread seems like a lot of speculation and conjecture over a system that hasn't been announced and nothing concrete is known about. Wait until E3 in June, then start the carping.
First. You're alive! Good to see you.
Second. Yeah, but if we did that, it'd be no fun talking about rumors.
Reaper, my point was that with you at the helm, I don't think that Nintendo would have launched the Wii. They would have made the Gamecube 2. You are focused on the way that games have been for a long time, which can be a successful strategy-- it's certainly worked for MS and Sony. But it's one where Nintendo was lagging, and badly. Even if they launched a current-gen console with comparable hardware to the other two consoles, how much of the market could they have gained? They'd be in a three way fight with nothing unique to offer, especially as games are increasingly cross-platform.[/quote]
It is more like a Gamecube 1.5. But I agree with you. Im not sure if I actually disagreed before but ok.
Nintendo went a different route. They introduced a novel experience, and were extremely successful with gamers and non-gamers alike. It was noted above that a lot of people who have an Xbox or PS3 also have a Wii, and that's a win for Nintendo. It doesn't matter how much people play the Wii, or if they have other consoles. All that matters is that they have the Wii, and buy new games for it.[/quote]
A novel, im not sure if you mean acceptable by that. Thats how I felt about the Wii. It was different, unique but not good and nowhere near great. Which also bring me too ask, why not have the MotionPlus tech right from the start? I dont think im the only one who asked that. Kinda how with the Nintendo 64 you could add 4MB of ''extra'' RAM. If it was possible from the beggining, why not? A marketing strategy that I really didnt like. Maybe it was ''just'' me who questioned it. Maybe. I dont question Nintendo's succeses, im well aware of it. It could have been better tho. Much better. They pretty much revived there own games. If you look at their sales from the SNES>N64>GC they where are going down. Wii broght sells back up. But maybe the reason for that is...gamer parents with kids? Its a broad topic. But, I know that in the future if I had kids, id like them to experience Mario.
Of course I noticed the difference between PS2 and 3, and Xbox and 360. The new consoles are better. But are they better to the same degree that the PS2 was to the PS1? As the Nintendo 64 to the Super Nintendo? Will these improvements bring in new gamers? It's likely that owners of current gen consoles will buy next gen as well, regardless of improvements, because that's where the new games will be.[/quote]
Yes, I belive each next gen is way better than the rest. Its not all about graphics, but what you can do in the game, how it feels, how it can react. I personally dont see a limit at all for games. Games will bring or make new gamers. Gamers are defined different now, almost everyone plays games. That's why some differentiate gamers as ''hardcore'' or ''casual''. Might not be accurate, but it works.
My point about the controller/2D screen combo is that the games will be very similar to what has come before. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to attract new people to video games. If you liked Metal Gear Solid, you'll probably like Metal Gear Solid 4 and the latest Splinter Cell game. The majority of the gameplay is a repetition of what you've already had, except for a gimmick or two and the fact that it's prettier. A lot of people bought a Wii because it offered something new, and not the same old thing with fancier paint. Even if the games themselves are largely shallow experiences, Nintendo still sold a crapload of units, which is what their business actually relies on. You say that this strategy won't work twice. If that's the case, why would offering no innovation work a 3rd time (at least) for the other consoles?[/quote]
The main reason that I said that it woudnt work twice is because of the demographic that it has AND what MS and Sony now brought to the table. You want better graphics and stuff but with motion? Get a PS3 or stay with the one you already own. Want no controls at all? 360 got you covered. We shall see what Nintendo brings, but if its anything like the Wii, I dont think their customers will care much about it. And why would it work for MS and Sony? Their demographic. The gamepad works on all most all genres, why change that? They want more graphics, more physics, more A.I more everything. And they will pay for it. Can the majority Nintendo's customers really ask for that? Or more like, more games for the kids and us to play with, for awhile. Ofcourse, this is just my opinion.
You say that the increased power of new consoles will allow for better games, and then write off the actual factors those games might employ to utilize that increased power as unrelated to a console's success. If you don't see the relationship between games themselves and the success of a console in attracting peopel to buy it, then I'll do more than question your business skills.[/quote]
Gameplay-> Its a design thing. Depends on the game, but yes hardware can mostly help. Quality-> Of graphics? Yeah, HW. Immersion-> This is purely psychological. Again, a design thing.
If next gen consoles are all similarly powerful, and have largely the same library of games, why would a consumer buy one over the other? Especially if they all offer the same types of play experience? Catering to the hard core slices off the entire demographic that Nintendo built over the current console generation in order to compete in a crowded marketplace without much to disinguish themselves from the competition.[/quote]
Last gen really changed things up, it used to be about first party games. Now it still kinda is. But console features are a big push id think, now. We all know the pros and cons of the current gen. I wont state them here.
I think that your views are heavily colored by your own preferences in gaming. You seem to think that because the Wii didn't really offer the experiences you personally wanted, with the horsepower you found exciting, that it was a "last breath", despite outselling every other company and making more money per unit anyhow. You think that if Nintendo doesn't draw you personally in on their next console, that it can't be successful, even though the Wii was successful largely because it focused on something other than gamers like you. There are definitely places where Nintendo could improve, like 3rd party support and offering something to more hardcore gamers. But that doesn't mean that their business is doomed unless they jump back into a fight where they were in 3rd place for a long, long time.[/quote]
In my opinion yeah it was a last breath of sorts. If they just released a better GC and kept there business model the same, I seriously belive that they would have hit rock bottom. They decided to make a ''new'' way to play, to probably grab the people that they lost and expand the market. It worked, good job. Now what? We have to see what they bring now. but think what the competition brought also. I actually have an idea of what ''Caffe'' might be, and I dont think it will work.
Even if Nintendo can't duplicate the level of success with the Wii 2 that they had with the Wii, they can still stay in the game and not go the Sega route. And it may not take much innovation to keep the market segment that Nintendo created and cultivated-- we don't know anything about their long-term video game purchasing trends. You assert that innovation isn't really an important factor and that new innovations won't be effective, and that the only way for a console to be successful is to push more polygons. That's Sega-hardware thinking, and it fizzled on them. Not Wii-thinking, which was successful beyond the estimations of every analyst.[/quote]
It wont, im sure. Ill even bet on it. Nintendo's way of business unless it changes and starts working/helping or for god's sakes ATLEAST letting their third party dev's know of new features for there console will do a circle that I like to call an ''Endless Waltz''. Hardware pushing and 1stParty games made the SNES, it was ok for the N64 it was plain bad for the GC, they lost sales on there games each generation. With the Wii it brought only inovation, comapared to the HW of MS and Sony, which pushed sells back up. I think a decline is about to come again. But we shall see. I dont loose or gain anything if Nintendo sells or fails. I just dont like how they do things. Im very excited to learn what they will announce.
...I got rated down -.-'' Great! Now no one will help me on the forums...
(EDIT: If your going to rate down, ATLEAST comment something!)
Thats how I felt about the Wii. It was different, unique but not good and nowhere near great. Which also bring me too ask, why not have the MotionPlus tech right from the start? I dont think im the only one who asked that. Kinda how with the Nintendo 64 you could add 4MB of ''extra'' RAM. If it was possible from the beggining, why not? A marketing strategy that I really didnt like. ... I dont question Nintendo's succeses, im well aware of it. It could have been better tho. Much better.
They probably didn't do it because there was no perceived need. Only after many developers cited the need did they bring out the hardware. It would have increased their per-unit costs.
Considering the hardware sales estimates it would have cost them roughly a half billion dollars, but had minimal impact on sales. That would have been a poor investment.
Its not all about graphics, but what you can do in the game, how it feels, how it can react. I personally dont see a limit at all for games. Games will bring or make new gamers. Gamers are defined different now, almost everyone plays games. That's why some differentiate gamers as ''hardcore'' or ''casual''. Might not be accurate, but it works.[/quote]
That is a false choice and a severely limiting attitude. Few successful business people had that attitude. It's like defining all automobiles as either sports cars or minivans. There are many different markets, and within each market there are sub-markets. People cross the lines between markets all the time. Your classification fails horribly, especially considering people can play "hardcore" games, and follow it up immediately with a "casual" game.
So no, it is not accurate, it also doesn't work.
The main reason that I said that it woudnt work twice is because of the demographic that it has AND what MS and Sony now brought to the table. You want better graphics and stuff but with motion? Get a PS3 or stay with the one you already own. Want no controls at all? 360 got you covered. We shall see what Nintendo brings, but if its anything like the Wii, I dont think their customers will care much about it. And why would it work for MS and Sony? Their demographic. The gamepad works on all most all genres, why change that? They want more graphics, more physics, more A.I more everything. And they will pay for it. Can the majority Nintendo's customers really ask for that? Or more like, more games for the kids and us to play with, for awhile. Ofcourse, this is just my opinion.[/quote]
Again, that's a false choice. You are assuming mutually exclusive or limited options where none exists. Look at the huge number of people who own multiple consoles.
The gamepad certainly does not work "on all most all genres". Music games? Dance games? Motion games? Racing games? Flight games? Sports games? All have custom controllers.
Many genres have been crying out for new controllers for years, and I know I've been among them. Many games like puzzle games and local multiplayer games can see great benefits from a private display. Not to mention that a novel interface allows for new genres to be created.
In my opinion yeah it was a last breath of sorts. If they just released a better GC and kept there business model the same, I seriously belive that they would have hit rock bottom. They decided to make a ''new'' way to play, to probably grab the people that they lost and expand the market. It worked, good job. Now what? We have to see what they bring now. but think what the competition brought also. I actually have an idea of what ''Caffe'' might be, and I dont think it will work.
It wont, im sure. Ill even bet on it. Nintendo's way of business unless it changes and starts working/helping or for god's sakes ATLEAST letting their third party dev's know of new features for there console will do a circle that I like to call an ''Endless Waltz''. Hardware pushing and 1stParty games made the SNES, it was ok for the N64 it was plain bad for the GC, they lost sales on there games each generation. With the Wii it brought only inovation, comapared to the HW of MS and Sony, which pushed sells back up. I think a decline is about to come again. But we shall see. I dont loose or gain anything if Nintendo sells or fails. I just dont like how they do things. Im very excited to learn what they will announce.[/quote]
They DID just release a better GC. The hardware was only marginally better than the GC. Many analysts had exactly your same attitude, and they were very wrong.
The assessments of the historical industry are misleading. Your statements are an incomplete assessment of the industry generally. You cannot look at just one system in a vacuum.
You said you would bet against it succeeding. That is a very odd thing to bet on. I wouldn't. If anything I'd be tempted to bet the other way. Nintendo has a very solid track record. They know their audiences. They know them very well. They have consistently delivered products that perform very well in the market. No other game company, and very few companies generally, can boast of such solid records.
I think your mixed attitude is funny. On the one hand you are excited about it, but on the other had you think it will fail. That's a very interesting attitude to take. If people are excited that as often all it takes to succeed.
...I got rated down -.-'' Great! Now no one will help me on the forums...[/quote]
The sky is falling! I got a -1 post. Oh teh noes!
More likely you were rated down because of a combative attitude and a hardline stance against those who presented alternate views.
