i dont really know what nintendo could have done differently with the wii U.
Wii HD with further improved motion controls.
and/or
Drop the stupid tablet.
and/or
Release it five years earlier.
or
Release it one year later with significantly beefier stats.
The Wii sold gangbusters, but never got played. For most consumers it was an expensive doorstop. There is research to back this up. Turns out, motion control was a gimmick that didn't mean a thing to core gamers and was quickly realised as a dumb aside to those who bought it for such.
It is clearly demonstrable that the Wii, of the big 3, caused buyer's remorse more than the other 2 consoles. The motion gimmick turned out to be, woah, a gimmick. But Nintendo, above all over counter game companies, have Nintendo games. for a significant number of people they are essential Everyone loves them.
So why don't they make the same fucking console as Sony and Microsoft, with the same power and ports, except they're the only fucking console with NINTENDO GAMES. Introduce the tablet later.
[Citation needed]
I've quoted the surveys, polls, and research on this thread and its predecessors multiple times. I cant now because I am on a phone. There are many surveys, the most relevant being Neilsen, showing that the average consumer played their Wii for about a 3rd to a half of the time each week as the average owners of PS3's and Xbox's. which isnt long. the data states that Wii's were bought and not played much. To me that shows dissatisfied customers. People caught up by hype. So why buy the follow up, that costs more and has less games? I think motion control is done, the tablet is a great idea, but Ninty fucked up by not meeting the graphical fidelity of its obvious competitors. It would have been simple for them to just wait and match the power the the next gen guys.
The "average" consumer buying the Wii were people like my parents and my in-laws who played it a couple hours a week because they absolutely loved Wii Sports. These same people have never considered buying a 360 or PS3. Studies like this are comparing two groups of people who cannot be compared.
I'm sure they did and I'm sure they love it. What was the last game they bought? But they won't buy the more expensive Wii U, I'd bet.
I don't see how you go from "played half as much as the 360" to "expensive doorstop." Especially when the Wii never had as many online games to encourage constant playing, and especially when it has a respectable tie ratio.
Time played / cost = value. That simple.
If the average family plays 360 10 hours per week and the Wii 5 hours per week, that's still 260 hours a year. That's not an expensive doorstop.
How can you even begin to guess what the average family thinks of a device based on a couple surveys that don't even ask that?
Maybe the average family uses a smartphone phone 30 hours a week. Does that mean they enjoy it 3 times as much as the 360?
If the average family only spends an hour reading, does that mean books should be assumed to generally be nothing but expensive doorstops?
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
My Wii became a doorstop due to the horrendous release schedule Nintendo treated Australasia region too. One of the main reasons I wisely choose not to buy a WiiU.
I don't see how you go from "played half as much as the 360" to "expensive doorstop." Especially when the Wii never had as many online games to encourage constant playing, and especially when it has a respectable tie ratio.
Time played / cost = value. That simple.
I can't tell if this is serious. You can honestly only speak for what your personal metric for value, because the word means different things to different people, with varying values.
Number one thing to avoid when you're discussing things (especially on the internet): Always remember to phrase things to be about your perspective, NEVER speak for other people, be they strangers or friends the people you're speaking with doesn't know.
The only survey that can answer this question is the one that asks "are you glad you purchased X device," and it has more than 10,000 random respondents from across the US, and it gives a simple percentage of people who answered "yes" or "no."
Otherwise don't try to ascribe others' value judgements to the number of hours they spend doing something. We could just as easily say it is better-liked than PS3 because it's got a similar tie ratio with more consoles sold, but we can't make a judgement based on that either.
Maybe the tie ratio is inflated because games are slightly cheaper!
Maybe the "average family" means the teen plays CoD all the time on 360 and nobody else gives a shit, but the Wii is brought out every Friday for family game night!
The only survey that can answer this question is the one that asks "are you glad you purchased X device," and it has more than 10,000 random respondents from across the US, and it gives a simple percentage of people who answered "yes" or "no."
Otherwise don't try to ascribe others' value judgements to the number of hours they spend doing something. We could just as easily say it is better-liked than PS3 because it's got a similar tie ratio with more consoles sold, but we can't make a judgement based on that either.
Maybe the tie ratio is inflated because games are slightly cheaper!
Maybe the "average family" means the teen plays CoD all the time on 360 and nobody else gives a shit, but the Wii is brought out every Friday for family game night!
Firstly no. The question was how many hours a week do you use this device.
Secondly, the polls were per user. Whether families or individuals were involved is irrelevant.
I am not trying to ascribe worth to anything based on conjecture. The facts are, pound for pound, hour for hour, per person, the Wii wasn't providing the hours of entertainment it's competitors were. Therefore, it's more expensive follow up is not selling as well given the competition.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
A movie is only an hour and 15 minutes vs. 2 hours. Clearly the first film provides less value.
The facts are, pound for pound, hour for hour, per person, the Wii wasn't providing the hours of entertainment it's competitors were. Therefore, it's more expensive follow up is not selling as well given the competition.
Therefore implies a clear logical connection. You have not established why "hours of entertainment" effects "decision to purchase". I gather you think it is obvious, but I disagree and so do many other people.
Until you demonstrate this connection your conclusion does not follow.
Put another way, you've only demonstrated a correlation, but you are presenting it as a causal connection. You are saying one is causing the other. Correlations do not work like that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The only survey that can answer this question is the one that asks "are you glad you purchased X device," and it has more than 10,000 random respondents from across the US, and it gives a simple percentage of people who answered "yes" or "no."
Otherwise don't try to ascribe others' value judgements to the number of hours they spend doing something. We could just as easily say it is better-liked than PS3 because it's got a similar tie ratio with more consoles sold, but we can't make a judgement based on that either.
Maybe the tie ratio is inflated because games are slightly cheaper!
Maybe the "average family" means the teen plays CoD all the time on 360 and nobody else gives a shit, but the Wii is brought out every Friday for family game night!
Firstly no. The question was how many hours a week do you use this device.
Secondly, the polls were per user. Whether families or individuals were involved is irrelevant.
I am not trying to ascribe worth to anything based on conjecture. The facts are, pound for pound, hour for hour, per person, the Wii wasn't providing the hours of entertainment it's competitors were. Therefore, it's more expensive follow up is not selling as well given the competition.
I was much happier playing through Little King's Story once over ten hours or whatever than I would have been playing Call of Duty multiplayer for two hundred hours.
I actually have yet to buy Xenoblade in spite of being pretty interested in it because by the time it released I was at a point in my life where I wasn't sure if I'd really have time to devote myself to a hundred-hour campaign.
Portal was only a few hours long, and I would still call it one of the best values of any game I ever bought because it was so unique and memorable and has stuck with me for so long in my mind.
"Relatively low amount of time played per user" doesn't automatically abstract to "users are unsatisfied with the product". You can't determine the number of people who ultimately considered their purchase of the console worthwhile purely from that statistic.
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Just for shits and giggles to throw a wrench into this, a couple years ago (or maybe just a year ago, I forget when) a study was done on hours invested into consoles from the last couple generations, and the Nintendo Gamecube came out on top of all of them - PS2, Wii, what the hell ever. But the Gamecube did not set the world on fire with sales compared to the PS2.
So I mean... really, how does this "hours invested means more or less sales" thing actually work again?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything this thread is about?
Go make a [Wii Is a Doorstop] thread, I'll totally contribute.
You don't see why discussion about why something made / did not make money is relevant in a thread about why those same things may / may not make more money...?
*edit* ok I retract the doorstop comment. Otherwise everything else stands.
If we want to talk about how the Wii U is doing or what Nintendo's strategy is or should be, that's fine. Trying to suss out if the Wii was used in households doesn't really seem to go anywhere because there's no way to get numbers on that.
Really, the only thing that is relevant to the Wii U's fate as far as the Wii goes is where did all the Wii owners go? Are they not upgrading because they see no point? Are they not upgrading because of a flaw in the Wii U or its marketing? Were they people who normally wouldn't buy a game console, and therefor won't end up buying a new one? Are they converted to normal console purchasers, but are waiting for more info on the other consoles?
Needless to say, something happened with the Wii that isn't happening with the Wii U. I find the question of why this is happening to be much more interesting than bashing the Wii. The Wii did very well for itself. My theory is it relied very heavily on a market that isn't there for game consoles typically, and that explains the low numbers for the Wii U. Others are saying the whole market is shrinking, myself I believe that's true, but only if you consider the blue ocean customers to be part of the market.
If the Wii audience has actually largely wandered off to never return, then the overall market for console games has dropped dramatically, and thus is fucked.
The fact that the attach rate for the Wii was the same as for the PS3 says to me that it was more than the Wii-sports machine so many people paint it as.
I don't know where those gamers have "gone" (if anywhere), but I would bet it comes down to the same damn thing as always - games. And that is where Nintendo fucked up the WiiU launch.
If we want to talk about how the Wii U is doing or what Nintendo's strategy is or should be, that's fine. Trying to suss out if the Wii was used in households doesn't really seem to go anywhere because there's no way to get numbers on that.
Really, the only thing that is relevant to the Wii U's fate as far as the Wii goes is where did all the Wii owners go? Are they not upgrading because they see no point? Are they not upgrading because of a flaw in the Wii U or its marketing? Were they people who normally wouldn't buy a game console, and therefor won't end up buying a new one? Are they converted to normal console purchasers, but are waiting for more info on the other consoles?
Needless to say, something happened with the Wii that isn't happening with the Wii U. I find the question of why this is happening to be much more interesting than bashing the Wii. The Wii did very well for itself. My theory is it relied very heavily on a market that isn't there for game consoles typically, and that explains the low numbers for the Wii U. Others are saying the whole market is shrinking, myself I believe that's true, but only if you consider the blue ocean customers to be part of the market.
It's $100 more expensive and has two SKUs (confusing) and one of them does not have the pack-in which is also not as immediately compelling as Wii Sports was, with its sports with well-known rules and a perfectly matching controller.
Also it didn't make the rounds on the daytime talk shows and morning news as a must-have device like the Wii did, to my knowledge.
If the Wii audience has actually largely wandered off to never return, then the overall market for console games has dropped dramatically, and thus is fucked.
The fact that the attach rate for the Wii was the same as for the PS3 says to me that it was more than the Wii-sports machine so many people paint it as.
I don't know where those gamers have "gone" (if anywhere), but I would bet it comes down to the same damn thing as always - games. And that is where Nintendo fucked up the WiiU launch.
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
The Wii sold around 99 million units. That's going to be more than 40 million.
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
The Wii sold around 99 million units. That's going to be more than 40 million.
Yes, and the PS2 sold around 150 million units world wide. People moved around this generation. But as far as new sales this gen vs last, there's about a 40 million unit sales increase. If each and every one of those sales was a blue ocean customer buying a Wii or the 360 for the Kinect, and we lost every single one, the industry wouldn't be doomed.
Last gen, the overall market was ~200 million (155M Ps2, 24M xbox, 22M gamecube). This gen, it has been ~250 million (100M Wii, 70M PS3, 77M 360).
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this yet, if only that if the Wii "doesn't count" and those gamers are "gone", then the market shrunk.
Also that requiring sales of 5 million to an audience of only 150 million (HD systems) is even more insane than I originally thought. Tomb raider needed to sell to 3% of the ENTIRE HD market, assuming that PS3 and 360 numbers aren't inflated by broken systems (which I assume they all are).
If we want to talk about how the Wii U is doing or what Nintendo's strategy is or should be, that's fine. Trying to suss out if the Wii was used in households doesn't really seem to go anywhere because there's no way to get numbers on that.
Yes, there is, which is what the entire discussion was about - the amount of usage of the Wii in households. It's not 'trying to suss out' how much it was used, there are numerous respectable surveys stating the numbers. Again, I'm on my phone, but here's the first report I found: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/08/nielsen-report-reveals-average-game-console-usage/
This is absolutely relevant. Manufacturers release consoles infrequently. If a console is purchased and gets less use than its competitors, over time that will affect its successors sales compared to its competitors.
Really, the only thing that is relevant to the Wii U's fate as far as the Wii goes is where did all the Wii owners go?
Which was also what that entire line of discussion was about.
I find the question of why this is happening to be much more interesting than bashing the Wii. The Wii did very well for itself.
I'm not bashing the Wii. I've not made a single comment about it's quality. Only what statistics say about its sales and usage.
I will use a very simple analogy. A lot of people pay to go and see Movie X. It makes a lot of money, however they don't love it. Focus groups show that if they buy it on DVD, they only watch it twice, compared to Movie Y, which is watched 4 times. Therefore they do not pay any money to go and see Movie X: 2. Tickets to which cost more than the first. However they go and see movie Y.
If we want to talk about how the Wii U is doing or what Nintendo's strategy is or should be, that's fine. Trying to suss out if the Wii was used in households doesn't really seem to go anywhere because there's no way to get numbers on that.
Yes, there is, which is what the entire discussion was about - the amount of usage of the Wii in households. It's not 'trying to suss out' how much it was used, there are numerous respectable surveys stating the numbers. Again, I'm on my phone, but here's the first report I found: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/08/nielsen-report-reveals-average-game-console-usage/
This is absolutely relevant. Manufacturers release consoles infrequently. If a console is purchased and gets less use than its competitors, over time that will affect its successors sales compared to its competitors.
Really, the only thing that is relevant to the Wii U's fate as far as the Wii goes is where did all the Wii owners go?
Which was also what that entire line of discussion was about.
I find the question of why this is happening to be much more interesting than bashing the Wii. The Wii did very well for itself.
I'm not bashing the Wii. I've not made a single comment about it's quality. Only what statistics say about its sales and usage.
Do we have numbers from more recent that 4 years ago? Because that seems completely useless in relationship to the Wii U. I know you're posting on your phone, but if you can't post the information, the discussion can't go anywhere. And since it's your assertion that's in question, you need to supply the evidence.
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
The Wii sold around 99 million units. That's going to be more than 40 million.
Yes, and the PS2 sold around 150 million units world wide. People moved around this generation. But as far as new sales this gen vs last, there's about a 40 million unit sales increase. If each and every one of those sales was a blue ocean customer buying a Wii or the 360 for the Kinect, and we lost every single one, the industry wouldn't be doomed.
I think it's really odd that you're saying it's not a dramatic shift. 40 of 200 is close to a quarter of the latter number. In fact it's a fifth. An industry growing by 20% is actually pretty big - usually industries talk about numbers less than 10%.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
this console generation has lasted long enough that population growth could also be a factor.
there are probably people who reached working age during this generation and bought a console later in the gen.
So David Jaffe defended his defense of Publishers fucking over the new guys by saying "yes, publishers will fuck over the new guys, nobody owes you anything".
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
The Wii sold around 99 million units. That's going to be more than 40 million.
Yes, and the PS2 sold around 150 million units world wide. People moved around this generation. But as far as new sales this gen vs last, there's about a 40 million unit sales increase. If each and every one of those sales was a blue ocean customer buying a Wii or the 360 for the Kinect, and we lost every single one, the industry wouldn't be doomed.
I think it's really odd that you're saying it's not a dramatic shift. 40 of 200 is close to a quarter of the latter number. In fact it's a fifth. An industry growing by 20% is actually pretty big - usually industries talk about numbers less than 10%.
My initial post was in response to this
If the Wii audience has actually largely wandered off to never return, then the overall market for console games has dropped dramatically, and thus is fucked.
If we assume that the "Wii audience" he was talking about is the 40 million new sales this generation, then all we're doing is going back to last generation's numbers. Was console gaming fucked in 2006 before the current round of consoles came out?
Yes, it's a dramatic shift, for Nintendo. As far as the industry as a whole goes, it's not all that dramatic of a shift. In fact, it won't have any effect on Microsoft or Sony (again, if the blue ocean crowd that boosted up Nintendo with the Wii left the market). They haven't been counting on those numbers. And, quite frankly, neither has Nintendo (warchest and handhelds and all that).
When a subset of a market is generally located around one competitor, their leaving the market doesn't doom the industry as a whole. Just that one company, if their strategy relies on that market being present.
Basically, yes, it is a dramatic shift if you just look flat at the numbers. If you look at where those numbers would actually be coming from, it's not as dramatic of a shift.
When a subset of a market is generally located around one competitor, their leaving the market doesn't doom the industry as a whole. Just that one company, if their strategy relies on that market being present.
What if a chunk of HD games were funded by sales of cheap, quick-to-produce games on the one with the previously-large install base?
So David Jaffe defended his defense of Publishers fucking over the new guys by saying "yes, publishers will fuck over the new guys, nobody owes you anything".
I'm watching right now, his initial defense is pretty poor. The guy in my avatar uses the defense of "hey when I speak, I'm speaking in the moment to fill the air, it doesn't reflect a well constructed thought." And in that case, it makes sense. But Jaffe saying that his blog reflects the same attitude is a load. When you write, you have plenty of time to read back on what's said before you publish for everyone to see, as opposed to a live broadcast. If he's putting out half-assed thoughts, that's his own fault. Though I guess he admits to it being his fault to an extent.
I REALLY hate the voice he's putting on when he's putting across other people's objections and counter-arguments. He's being a really dismissive jackass about it.
I've never cared for people saying, "Well that's the way it is, too bad!" Just because you're defeated and don't strive for conditions to be better doesn't mean anyone else should. Leave the "misery loves company" shit over there. Away from this.
He's ignoring legit concerns about taking any deal offered perpetuating bad deals offered in the first place.
Ugh, his overall attitude is making this unwatchable.
A generation doing 2006 numbers with games created at 2013 budgets? I think it'd be fucked.
If DoR is correct, the numbers are remaining relatively flat for MS and Sony.
The budget issue is one divorced from the loss of the Blue Ocean. That's unsustainable development practices. AAA will consolidate and developers either learn to play in the B level, or die and create indies who will play in the B/C level.
What if a chunk of HD games were funded by sales of cheap, quick-to-produce games on the one with the previously-large install base?
Not seeing third-party Wii title sales to justify the speculation, expect for possibility Ubisoft (Just Dance), and the only thing funding AC is AC. It's a beast that will continue until it kills itself.
A generation doing 2006 numbers with games created at 2013 budgets? I think it'd be fucked.
Those budgets have been present on the 360 and PS3, not the Wii. The PS3 and 360 have combined sales of around 140 million units, which is about the lifetime sales of the PS2. Publishers HAVE been making games with 2013 budgets based off of 2006 numbers.
When a subset of a market is generally located around one competitor, their leaving the market doesn't doom the industry as a whole. Just that one company, if their strategy relies on that market being present.
What if a chunk of HD games were funded by sales of cheap, quick-to-produce games on the one with the previously-large install base?
Then I'd say the entire industry is doomed to fail because apparently publishers don't understand basic business practices. You don't fund your super expensive projects if you don't get a return on super expensive projects. If the game industry worked in the way you're describing, publishers would have shied away from the AAA model in 2008/2009.
Edit: This isn't to say that the AAA model isn't ridiculously risky. However, businesses aren't likely to keep doing something if they're not making a profit off of doing it.
Ubisoft very specifically mentioned Wii games helped fund AAA development.
Also, I think 40 million is lowballing the casuals - previous generation a lot of people bought PS2 as a cheap DVD and singstar machine. And right now 360 had a few months of being a kinect machine.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
So David Jaffe defended his defense of Publishers fucking over the new guys by saying "yes, publishers will fuck over the new guys, nobody owes you anything".
I'm watching right now, his initial defense is pretty poor. The guy in my avatar uses the defense of "hey when I speak, I'm speaking in the moment to fill the air, it doesn't reflect a well constructed thought." And in that case, it makes sense. But Jaffe saying that his blog reflects the same attitude is a load. When you write, you have plenty of time to read back on what's said before you publish for everyone to see, as opposed to a live broadcast. If he's putting out half-assed thoughts, that's his own fault. Though I guess he admits to it being his fault to an extent.
I REALLY hate the voice he's putting on when he's putting across other people's objections and counter-arguments. He's being a really dismissive jackass about it.
I've never cared for people saying, "Well that's the way it is, too bad!" Just because you're defeated and don't strive for conditions to be better doesn't mean anyone else should. Leave the "misery loves company" shit over there. Away from this.
He's ignoring legit concerns about taking any deal offered perpetuating bad deals offered in the first place.
Ugh, his overall attitude is making this unwatchable.
Also, I think 40 million is lowballing the casuals - previous generation a lot of people bought PS2 as a cheap DVD and singstar machine. And right now 360 had a few months of being a kinect machine.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
I actually agree on this point. The number of individual consumers is probably a lot less that we'd assume from the numbers. I do wonder with the lack of third party exclusives this generation, if the cross over ratio between PS3 and 360 owners is a lot less than in previous generations. I know last gen I owned all 3 consoles at one point or another. This gen I've been perfectly fine with just a 360 (and a Wii a while). There's no real way to suss out these numbers, but it is interesting to think about how much the landscape has changed over the last 7-8 years.
Ubisoft very specifically mentioned Wii games helped fund AAA development.
Hurm, got a link? As I said, their Wii games outside of Just Dance didn't sell at an appreciable level to assume it funded the annual AC machine.
Casual efforts are starting to move towards free-to-play online games. Development even cheaper than Wii U/360/PS3, and the possibility of higher return. Not that Free-to-play might not find its place on Wii U.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
I think the 150 million for the PS2 and 360/PS3 combined is a solid number.
Also, I think 40 million is lowballing the casuals - previous generation a lot of people bought PS2 as a cheap DVD and singstar machine. And right now 360 had a few months of being a kinect machine.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
I actually agree on this point. The number of individual consumers is probably a lot less that we'd assume from the numbers. I do wonder with the lack of third party exclusives this generation, if the cross over ratio between PS3 and 360 owners is a lot less than in previous generations. I know last gen I owned all 3 consoles at one point or another. This gen I've been perfectly fine with just a 360 (and a Wii a while). There's no real way to suss out these numbers, but it is interesting to think about how much the landscape has changed over the last 7-8 years.
I'd love to see someone who really knows their stuff crunch the numbers.
Like for instance, how many HD gamers are out there? Once you take out broken systems and those who own both, does it drop from 140M to as low as 100M? To go back to Tomb Raider (because it's such an insane example), that then puts it at 5% of the audience to buy in. One in twenty.
Also, I think 40 million is lowballing the casuals - previous generation a lot of people bought PS2 as a cheap DVD and singstar machine. And right now 360 had a few months of being a kinect machine.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
I actually agree on this point. The number of individual consumers is probably a lot less that we'd assume from the numbers. I do wonder with the lack of third party exclusives this generation, if the cross over ratio between PS3 and 360 owners is a lot less than in previous generations. I know last gen I owned all 3 consoles at one point or another. This gen I've been perfectly fine with just a 360 (and a Wii a while). There's no real way to suss out these numbers, but it is interesting to think about how much the landscape has changed over the last 7-8 years.
I'd love to see someone who really knows their stuff crunch the numbers.
Like for instance, how many HD gamers are out there? Once you take out broken systems and those who own both, does it drop from 140M to as low as 100M? To go back to Tomb Raider (because it's such an insane example), that then puts it at 5% of the audience to buy in. One in twenty.
If you really want to have your mind blown, realize that the number sold is less than the number of players for a particular game because of the used market. With those numbers, we may find that the percentage of the market playing the game may be anywhere from 5%-100%. It very well could be that the vast majority of players for a game comes from the used market.
Then think about the fact that every time that game changes hands, there's a very good chance whoever bought it may purchase DLC. So the revenue for a single copy of a game could look like this:
$60 Game is purchased
$20 Season pass is purchased
- game is sold to gamestop and purchased
$10 DLC is purchased
-game is sold to gamestop and purchased
$10 Ten dollar initiative is purchased
$20 Season Pass is purchased
-game is put on a shelf to never be purchased again
Total extra revenue: $60
It all depends on if the DLC is sold and when it finds someone who doesn't sell their games.
Posts
I'm sure they did and I'm sure they love it. What was the last game they bought? But they won't buy the more expensive Wii U, I'd bet.
Steam: adamjnet
If the average family plays 360 10 hours per week and the Wii 5 hours per week, that's still 260 hours a year. That's not an expensive doorstop.
How can you even begin to guess what the average family thinks of a device based on a couple surveys that don't even ask that?
Maybe the average family uses a smartphone phone 30 hours a week. Does that mean they enjoy it 3 times as much as the 360?
If the average family only spends an hour reading, does that mean books should be assumed to generally be nothing but expensive doorstops?
I can't tell if this is serious. You can honestly only speak for what your personal metric for value, because the word means different things to different people, with varying values.
Number one thing to avoid when you're discussing things (especially on the internet): Always remember to phrase things to be about your perspective, NEVER speak for other people, be they strangers or friends the people you're speaking with doesn't know.
Otherwise don't try to ascribe others' value judgements to the number of hours they spend doing something. We could just as easily say it is better-liked than PS3 because it's got a similar tie ratio with more consoles sold, but we can't make a judgement based on that either.
Maybe the tie ratio is inflated because games are slightly cheaper!
Maybe the "average family" means the teen plays CoD all the time on 360 and nobody else gives a shit, but the Wii is brought out every Friday for family game night!
Firstly no. The question was how many hours a week do you use this device.
Secondly, the polls were per user. Whether families or individuals were involved is irrelevant.
I am not trying to ascribe worth to anything based on conjecture. The facts are, pound for pound, hour for hour, per person, the Wii wasn't providing the hours of entertainment it's competitors were. Therefore, it's more expensive follow up is not selling as well given the competition.
Steam: adamjnet
First film is watched 50 times, 2nd film is watched once. That's the comparison you should be making.
Steam: adamjnet
That still doesn't define value, it's an example of repeating something.
Therefore implies a clear logical connection. You have not established why "hours of entertainment" effects "decision to purchase". I gather you think it is obvious, but I disagree and so do many other people.
Until you demonstrate this connection your conclusion does not follow.
Put another way, you've only demonstrated a correlation, but you are presenting it as a causal connection. You are saying one is causing the other. Correlations do not work like that.
I was much happier playing through Little King's Story once over ten hours or whatever than I would have been playing Call of Duty multiplayer for two hundred hours.
I actually have yet to buy Xenoblade in spite of being pretty interested in it because by the time it released I was at a point in my life where I wasn't sure if I'd really have time to devote myself to a hundred-hour campaign.
Portal was only a few hours long, and I would still call it one of the best values of any game I ever bought because it was so unique and memorable and has stuck with me for so long in my mind.
"Relatively low amount of time played per user" doesn't automatically abstract to "users are unsatisfied with the product". You can't determine the number of people who ultimately considered their purchase of the console worthwhile purely from that statistic.
So I mean... really, how does this "hours invested means more or less sales" thing actually work again?
Go make a [Wii Is a Doorstop] thread, I'll totally contribute.
You don't see why discussion about why something made / did not make money is relevant in a thread about why those same things may / may not make more money...?
*edit* ok I retract the doorstop comment. Otherwise everything else stands.
Steam: adamjnet
If we want to talk about how the Wii U is doing or what Nintendo's strategy is or should be, that's fine. Trying to suss out if the Wii was used in households doesn't really seem to go anywhere because there's no way to get numbers on that.
Really, the only thing that is relevant to the Wii U's fate as far as the Wii goes is where did all the Wii owners go? Are they not upgrading because they see no point? Are they not upgrading because of a flaw in the Wii U or its marketing? Were they people who normally wouldn't buy a game console, and therefor won't end up buying a new one? Are they converted to normal console purchasers, but are waiting for more info on the other consoles?
Needless to say, something happened with the Wii that isn't happening with the Wii U. I find the question of why this is happening to be much more interesting than bashing the Wii. The Wii did very well for itself. My theory is it relied very heavily on a market that isn't there for game consoles typically, and that explains the low numbers for the Wii U. Others are saying the whole market is shrinking, myself I believe that's true, but only if you consider the blue ocean customers to be part of the market.
The fact that the attach rate for the Wii was the same as for the PS3 says to me that it was more than the Wii-sports machine so many people paint it as.
I don't know where those gamers have "gone" (if anywhere), but I would bet it comes down to the same damn thing as always - games. And that is where Nintendo fucked up the WiiU launch.
It's $100 more expensive and has two SKUs (confusing) and one of them does not have the pack-in which is also not as immediately compelling as Wii Sports was, with its sports with well-known rules and a perfectly matching controller.
Also it didn't make the rounds on the daytime talk shows and morning news as a must-have device like the Wii did, to my knowledge.
Apparantly in total this generation has sold around 240 million consoles. Last generation sold a little less than 200 million consoles. So, it's not a dramatic shift.
Now, of course, there's a lot of factors you have to consider with these numbers, such as the number of people who owned multiple consoles each generation. Either way, even if we lost all 40 million new console owners next generation, it wouldn't be a significant loss by any means, and doesn't mean doom for the industry.
Yes, and the PS2 sold around 150 million units world wide. People moved around this generation. But as far as new sales this gen vs last, there's about a 40 million unit sales increase. If each and every one of those sales was a blue ocean customer buying a Wii or the 360 for the Kinect, and we lost every single one, the industry wouldn't be doomed.
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from this yet, if only that if the Wii "doesn't count" and those gamers are "gone", then the market shrunk.
Also that requiring sales of 5 million to an audience of only 150 million (HD systems) is even more insane than I originally thought. Tomb raider needed to sell to 3% of the ENTIRE HD market, assuming that PS3 and 360 numbers aren't inflated by broken systems (which I assume they all are).
Yes, there is, which is what the entire discussion was about - the amount of usage of the Wii in households. It's not 'trying to suss out' how much it was used, there are numerous respectable surveys stating the numbers. Again, I'm on my phone, but here's the first report I found: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/08/nielsen-report-reveals-average-game-console-usage/
This is absolutely relevant. Manufacturers release consoles infrequently. If a console is purchased and gets less use than its competitors, over time that will affect its successors sales compared to its competitors.
Which was also what that entire line of discussion was about.
I'm not bashing the Wii. I've not made a single comment about it's quality. Only what statistics say about its sales and usage.
I will use a very simple analogy. A lot of people pay to go and see Movie X. It makes a lot of money, however they don't love it. Focus groups show that if they buy it on DVD, they only watch it twice, compared to Movie Y, which is watched 4 times. Therefore they do not pay any money to go and see Movie X: 2. Tickets to which cost more than the first. However they go and see movie Y.
Steam: adamjnet
Do we have numbers from more recent that 4 years ago? Because that seems completely useless in relationship to the Wii U. I know you're posting on your phone, but if you can't post the information, the discussion can't go anywhere. And since it's your assertion that's in question, you need to supply the evidence.
I think it's really odd that you're saying it's not a dramatic shift. 40 of 200 is close to a quarter of the latter number. In fact it's a fifth. An industry growing by 20% is actually pretty big - usually industries talk about numbers less than 10%.
there are probably people who reached working age during this generation and bought a console later in the gen.
http://www.davidjaffe.biz/
He gets... really whiny though.
There's also people who abandon the industry altogether as consumers.
My initial post was in response to this
If we assume that the "Wii audience" he was talking about is the 40 million new sales this generation, then all we're doing is going back to last generation's numbers. Was console gaming fucked in 2006 before the current round of consoles came out?
Yes, it's a dramatic shift, for Nintendo. As far as the industry as a whole goes, it's not all that dramatic of a shift. In fact, it won't have any effect on Microsoft or Sony (again, if the blue ocean crowd that boosted up Nintendo with the Wii left the market). They haven't been counting on those numbers. And, quite frankly, neither has Nintendo (warchest and handhelds and all that).
When a subset of a market is generally located around one competitor, their leaving the market doesn't doom the industry as a whole. Just that one company, if their strategy relies on that market being present.
Basically, yes, it is a dramatic shift if you just look flat at the numbers. If you look at where those numbers would actually be coming from, it's not as dramatic of a shift.
What if a chunk of HD games were funded by sales of cheap, quick-to-produce games on the one with the previously-large install base?
I'm watching right now, his initial defense is pretty poor. The guy in my avatar uses the defense of "hey when I speak, I'm speaking in the moment to fill the air, it doesn't reflect a well constructed thought." And in that case, it makes sense. But Jaffe saying that his blog reflects the same attitude is a load. When you write, you have plenty of time to read back on what's said before you publish for everyone to see, as opposed to a live broadcast. If he's putting out half-assed thoughts, that's his own fault. Though I guess he admits to it being his fault to an extent.
I REALLY hate the voice he's putting on when he's putting across other people's objections and counter-arguments. He's being a really dismissive jackass about it.
I've never cared for people saying, "Well that's the way it is, too bad!" Just because you're defeated and don't strive for conditions to be better doesn't mean anyone else should. Leave the "misery loves company" shit over there. Away from this.
He's ignoring legit concerns about taking any deal offered perpetuating bad deals offered in the first place.
Ugh, his overall attitude is making this unwatchable.
If DoR is correct, the numbers are remaining relatively flat for MS and Sony.
The budget issue is one divorced from the loss of the Blue Ocean. That's unsustainable development practices. AAA will consolidate and developers either learn to play in the B level, or die and create indies who will play in the B/C level.
Not seeing third-party Wii title sales to justify the speculation, expect for possibility Ubisoft (Just Dance), and the only thing funding AC is AC. It's a beast that will continue until it kills itself.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Those budgets have been present on the 360 and PS3, not the Wii. The PS3 and 360 have combined sales of around 140 million units, which is about the lifetime sales of the PS2. Publishers HAVE been making games with 2013 budgets based off of 2006 numbers.
Then I'd say the entire industry is doomed to fail because apparently publishers don't understand basic business practices. You don't fund your super expensive projects if you don't get a return on super expensive projects. If the game industry worked in the way you're describing, publishers would have shied away from the AAA model in 2008/2009.
Edit: This isn't to say that the AAA model isn't ridiculously risky. However, businesses aren't likely to keep doing something if they're not making a profit off of doing it.
Also, I think 40 million is lowballing the casuals - previous generation a lot of people bought PS2 as a cheap DVD and singstar machine. And right now 360 had a few months of being a kinect machine.
The "hardcore" market is lower than the 200 million. By how much, who knows? I could see it being as low as 150 million, once you take out those who own multiple systems.
Yes, that voice he does is so fucking annoying.
I actually agree on this point. The number of individual consumers is probably a lot less that we'd assume from the numbers. I do wonder with the lack of third party exclusives this generation, if the cross over ratio between PS3 and 360 owners is a lot less than in previous generations. I know last gen I owned all 3 consoles at one point or another. This gen I've been perfectly fine with just a 360 (and a Wii a while). There's no real way to suss out these numbers, but it is interesting to think about how much the landscape has changed over the last 7-8 years.
Hurm, got a link? As I said, their Wii games outside of Just Dance didn't sell at an appreciable level to assume it funded the annual AC machine.
Casual efforts are starting to move towards free-to-play online games. Development even cheaper than Wii U/360/PS3, and the possibility of higher return. Not that Free-to-play might not find its place on Wii U.
I think the 150 million for the PS2 and 360/PS3 combined is a solid number.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
I'd love to see someone who really knows their stuff crunch the numbers.
Like for instance, how many HD gamers are out there? Once you take out broken systems and those who own both, does it drop from 140M to as low as 100M? To go back to Tomb Raider (because it's such an insane example), that then puts it at 5% of the audience to buy in. One in twenty.
If you really want to have your mind blown, realize that the number sold is less than the number of players for a particular game because of the used market. With those numbers, we may find that the percentage of the market playing the game may be anywhere from 5%-100%. It very well could be that the vast majority of players for a game comes from the used market.
Then think about the fact that every time that game changes hands, there's a very good chance whoever bought it may purchase DLC. So the revenue for a single copy of a game could look like this:
$60 Game is purchased
$20 Season pass is purchased
- game is sold to gamestop and purchased
$10 DLC is purchased
-game is sold to gamestop and purchased
$10 Ten dollar initiative is purchased
$20 Season Pass is purchased
-game is put on a shelf to never be purchased again
Total extra revenue: $60
It all depends on if the DLC is sold and when it finds someone who doesn't sell their games.