I'll add that it's impossible to say whether Smash is, technically, a system-seller because the system in this case keeps selling out month after month.
I agree, which is why I was wondering if there was an increase in production. Otherwise, if it truly is selling out, we should've seen similiar sales for Wii hardware (around 440k, IIRC), instead of the 300k jump.
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
I'll add that it's impossible to say whether Smash is, technically, a system-seller because the system in this case keeps selling out month after month.
I agree, which is why I was wondering if there was an increase in production. Otherwise, if it truly is selling out, we should've seen similiar sales for Wii hardware (around 440k, IIRC), instead of the 300k jump.
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
So I did miss an announcement. Okay, well that makes sense, except why until March?
I'll add that it's impossible to say whether Smash is, technically, a system-seller because the system in this case keeps selling out month after month.
I agree, which is why I was wondering if there was an increase in production. Otherwise, if it truly is selling out, we should've seen similiar sales for Wii hardware (around 440k, IIRC), instead of the 300k jump.
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
So I did miss an announcement. Okay, well that makes sense, except why until March?
The company is notoriously cautious with their economics (in this case, supply -- an excess can be costly) and the continued success of the Wii caught even them by surprise. New consoles generally stop selling out after a few months, while the Wii is closing in on two years of sell-outs. That's mind-boggling.
Plus, Nintendo's heavy hitters (Smash, Mario Kart, Wii Fit) started coming out in March, so they decided to go for it.
What is this recession everyone keeps talking about? Outside of some higher gas prices and some foods, I don't see anything changing around here in NJ. I still have the same job, the same pay, the same expenses, nothing is changing that would cause me not to buy something for fear of not being able to afford food tomorrow.
Recession != Depression. And technically, we're not in a recession yet, although many would agree that it's impending.
Also, recession/depression doesn't mean it affects everyone the same way. Sure, there will be plenty of people that have jobs and can pay the bills, but being in a recession means more people than usual won't.
Anyway, I mentioned it a few pages ago but I'll repeat again. I think the economic "malaise" the US seems to be in does affect sales. Not so much games, since $60 is still disposable to many, but certainly $300-400 is a lot. I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers out there that would love to play GTA IV, but they can't afford buying a 360 or PS3, the game, and whatever else that would be needed to play it. There are certainly lots of polls and surveys out there that show that Americans are becoming more and more worried about the economy.
What is this recession everyone keeps talking about? Outside of some higher gas prices and some foods, I don't see anything changing around here in NJ. I still have the same job, the same pay, the same expenses, nothing is changing that would cause me not to buy something for fear of not being able to afford food tomorrow.
Recession != Depression. And technically, we're not in a recession yet, although many would agree that it's impending.
Also, recession/depression doesn't mean it affects everyone the same way. Sure, there will be plenty of people that have jobs and can pay the bills, but being in a recession means more people than usual won't.
Anyway, I mentioned it a few pages ago but I'll repeat again. I think the economic "malaise" the US seems to be in does affect sales. Not so much games, since $60 is still disposable to many, but certainly $300-400 is a lot. I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers out there that would love to play GTA IV, but they can't afford buying a 360 or PS3, the game, and whatever else that would be needed to play it. There are certainly lots of polls and surveys out there that show that Americans are becoming more and more worried about the economy.
And that worry spills over to less money being spent, which in turn hurts the economy even more. Which is why the government thought the stimulus check would help, which it probably wont... But it's nice to have that disposable $600.
What is this recession everyone keeps talking about? Outside of some higher gas prices and some foods, I don't see anything changing around here in NJ. I still have the same job, the same pay, the same expenses, nothing is changing that would cause me not to buy something for fear of not being able to afford food tomorrow.
Recession != Depression. And technically, we're not in a recession yet, although many would agree that it's impending.
Also, recession/depression doesn't mean it affects everyone the same way. Sure, there will be plenty of people that have jobs and can pay the bills, but being in a recession means more people than usual won't.
Anyway, I mentioned it a few pages ago but I'll repeat again. I think the economic "malaise" the US seems to be in does affect sales. Not so much games, since $60 is still disposable to many, but certainly $300-400 is a lot. I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers out there that would love to play GTA IV, but they can't afford buying a 360 or PS3, the game, and whatever else that would be needed to play it. There are certainly lots of polls and surveys out there that show that Americans are becoming more and more worried about the economy.
And that worry spills over to less money being spent, which in turn hurts the economy even more. Which is why the government thought the stimulus check would help, which it probably wont... But it's nice to have that disposable $600.
Perhaps, at least that's what the President would have you think, but we should avoid dragging politics into this. :P
So, stimulus checks started going out in May. I predict that's the next thing analysts and anti-Wii fanboys are going to latch onto as "reasons why May is going to be HUUUUUUGE". Millions of people spending their stimulus checks on a 360/PS3 and GTA IV? Yay for gaming!
Well, perhaps. We'll see how that turns out. (I'm still grumpy because I don't get a stimulus check )
I'll add that it's impossible to say whether Smash is, technically, a system-seller because the system in this case keeps selling out month after month.
I agree, which is why I was wondering if there was an increase in production. Otherwise, if it truly is selling out, we should've seen similiar sales for Wii hardware (around 440k, IIRC), instead of the 300k jump.
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
So I did miss an announcement. Okay, well that makes sense, except why until March?
The company is notoriously cautious with their economics (in this case, supply -- an excess can be costly) and the continued success of the Wii caught even them by surprise. New consoles generally stop selling out after a few months, while the Wii is closing in on two years of sell-outs. That's mind-boggling.
Plus, Nintendo's heavy hitters (Smash, Mario Kart, Wii Fit) started coming out in March, so they decided to go for it.
Are you implying that Nintendo's been holding back production, or atleast its capacity to increase production? There was an interview posted here just a day or two ago where someone from Nintendo (forgot the name, which might be important...) upturned this belief, and said they literally have just been unable to move more consoles. I would buy that production increased in March, which lead to higher sales (I still believe Smash did affect this as well), but I don't think Nintendo 'went for it' in March specifically; at least, not in the sense that they had been holding back before.
What is this recession everyone keeps talking about? Outside of some higher gas prices and some foods, I don't see anything changing around here in NJ. I still have the same job, the same pay, the same expenses, nothing is changing that would cause me not to buy something for fear of not being able to afford food tomorrow.
Recession != Depression. And technically, we're not in a recession yet, although many would agree that it's impending.
Also, recession/depression doesn't mean it affects everyone the same way. Sure, there will be plenty of people that have jobs and can pay the bills, but being in a recession means more people than usual won't.
Anyway, I mentioned it a few pages ago but I'll repeat again. I think the economic "malaise" the US seems to be in does affect sales. Not so much games, since $60 is still disposable to many, but certainly $300-400 is a lot. I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers out there that would love to play GTA IV, but they can't afford buying a 360 or PS3, the game, and whatever else that would be needed to play it. There are certainly lots of polls and surveys out there that show that Americans are becoming more and more worried about the economy.
And that worry spills over to less money being spent, which in turn hurts the economy even more. Which is why the government thought the stimulus check would help, which it probably wont... But it's nice to have that disposable $600.
Perhaps, at least that's what the President would have you think, but we should avoid dragging politics into this. :P
So, stimulus checks started going out in May. I predict that's the next thing analysts and anti-Wii fanboys are going to latch onto as "reasons why May is going to be HUUUUUUGE". Millions of people spending their stimulus checks on a 360/PS3 and GTA IV? Yay for gaming!
Well, perhaps. We'll see how that turns out. (I'm still grumpy because I don't get a stimulus check )
I got my $1500. Dunno what I'm going to do with it yet. Probably pay down the car loan a bit, but I gotta get something nice out of it. Perhaps the 500GB HDD, new graphics card, and camcorder I've been wanting to get.
Are you implying that Nintendo's been holding back production, or atleast its capacity to increase production?
I don't think that's incorrect. They were pretty surprised by demand. They've been more surprised by how long the demand has gone unsatisfied. You can't blame them for not immediately opening more plants when there's the potential that it could just waste money.
upturned this belief, and said they literally have just been unable to move more consoles. I would buy that production increased in March, which lead to higher sales (I still believe Smash did affect this as well), but I don't think Nintendo 'went for it' in March specifically; at least, not in the sense that they had been holding back before.
Yeah, I think he was responding more to the notion that Nintendo was artificially creating demand for hype.
I'll add that it's impossible to say whether Smash is, technically, a system-seller because the system in this case keeps selling out month after month.
I agree, which is why I was wondering if there was an increase in production. Otherwise, if it truly is selling out, we should've seen similiar sales for Wii hardware (around 440k, IIRC), instead of the 300k jump.
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
So I did miss an announcement. Okay, well that makes sense, except why until March?
The company is notoriously cautious with their economics (in this case, supply -- an excess can be costly) and the continued success of the Wii caught even them by surprise. New consoles generally stop selling out after a few months, while the Wii is closing in on two years of sell-outs. That's mind-boggling.
Plus, Nintendo's heavy hitters (Smash, Mario Kart, Wii Fit) started coming out in March, so they decided to go for it.
Are you implying that Nintendo's been holding back production, or atleast its capacity to increase production? There was an interview posted here just a day or two ago where someone from Nintendo (forgot the name, which might be important...) upturned this belief, and said they literally have just been unable to move more consoles. I would buy that production increased in March, which lead to higher sales (I still believe Smash did affect this as well), but I don't think Nintendo 'went for it' in March specifically; at least, not in the sense that they had been holding back before.
Nonono. They haven't been creating a shortage. They had just been producing consoles at a "regular" rate, "regular" meaning "ample supplies for your average console." Which is around 300,000-400,000 on non-holiday months. But the Wii has been far from average.
The thing to do is to up production, right? Hold on a minute... doing so is costly. You have to make a contract with new, third-party factories, you have to figure out how many to make, etc. On top of that, if you do all that and you don't sell the excess supply, you're out a LOT of money.
So, the thinking goes at Nintendo a few months after the Wii launch, the console has been selling well so far, but it'll drop back down soon like every other console, right? It didn't. It defied history, and expectations... even Nintendo's. In interview after interview, they've been surprised at just how well the damn thing's been selling. They expected it to do well, but not THIS well.
So they gradually pushed production higher, seemingly believing Wii sales would drop back to something resembling normal. They didn't. This went on and on to March, when Nintendo's two biggest-selling, proven franchises (Smash and Kart) are coming out, along with a newcomer the mainstream media has been drooling over (Wii Fit, which will get the biggest marketing push Nintendo of America has EVER done). It makes sense that this convergence would give them the confidence to ship over 700,000 per month, which is just an absolutely INSANE amount outside the holidays.
Yet it still sold out. Now you see where I'm coming from?
Are you implying that Nintendo's been holding back production, or atleast its capacity to increase production?
I don't think that's incorrect. They were pretty surprised by demand. They've been more surprised by how long the demand has gone unsatisfied. You can't blame them for not immediately opening more plants when there's the potential that it could just waste money.
upturned this belief, and said they literally have just been unable to move more consoles. I would buy that production increased in March, which lead to higher sales (I still believe Smash did affect this as well), but I don't think Nintendo 'went for it' in March specifically; at least, not in the sense that they had been holding back before.
Yeah, I think he was responding more to the notion that Nintendo was artificially creating demand for hype.
Right, that's what the interview was focused on, which still implies they aren't 'holding anything back.'
And I didn't think that's what cloudeagle was saying, I just wanted to make sure.
I still believe Smash helped moved Wii's, just like Halo 3 and COD4 helped move PS3's and 360's. GTAIV's inability to do so is just a reflection of current market conditions.
EDIT: Yeah, that's what I thought you were saying eagle, I just didn't want to misinterpret. I think that's been the case for the Wii in March/April, but again, software has helped fuel those sales. Nintendo's decision to increase production was a result of upcoming software, and the insatiable demand for the Wii is a result of software.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
The video console debates this generation are unintentionally hilarious (or I should say, the people that associate themselves with a particular video game console or style, and argue from that perspective). They're all just consoles, they all have games. One just features a movement-based controller, doesn't have as powerful hardware, and sports a massive whale penis.
Yeah, when I'm hearing about parents who barely understand how computers work just happen to own a Wii (and are bitching over not wanting to buy another controller), there's pretty crazy demand.
Of course, I think a lot of it is like an extended "furby" craze or "tickle me elmo" craze, where a lot of people are buying them just because they're the in-thing. Which, hey, is awesome, the more people playing video games, the better. I think people who aren't "gamers" are snatching them up because it's a "fad" that's actually fun, and you don't have to be really good to have a really fun time with it.
I don't mean that in the "fleeting, unjustified" use of the terms, just in how the general populace seems to be reacting to the Wii. It's been out for quite some time, they're not easy to get, and everyone says they're a lot of fun and *easy* to play. So when people see them, they snatch them up even if they're not really into gaming. I think the anger from PS360 fanboys comes from the idea that, at any moment, everyone who actually wants a Wii will have been able to find one and then that's it. But the more people are playing them, the more *other* people want one.
I don't know what that means for future iterations of the Wii, and while people are buying new games I do think the analogies to the PS2 are pretty well warranted -- some people are picking it up for specific, high quality games, while others are picking them up because it's "the system to have" and buying some mediocre filler games because of a licensed character.
I also think it helps a lot that it's seen by parents as at least some physical activity, so they're buying them for kids without worrying about the kid zoning out in front of the telly.
But yeah, I hear more and more people who I would never expect to even think about video games talking about the Wii. There's enough demand for a $250 console like the Wii for seemingly most of the US populace ;D
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
Right, it boosts it for the short term; of course, it also adds to the library, and that library is what causes the long-term changes. We don't have enough consoles over similar time periods to really compare libraries, but most people are happy stating that the PS2 had no real advantages in its first year of sales. Crappy launch titles, people buying it "just as a DVD player," then GTA3 hits... and then a shitload of other high-quality titles hits, all before the 2nd year.
If anything, that's the strategy that Nintendo adopted for this generation -- all of its heavy hitters are out the door already, and the console is young. You put out a high-quality library ASAP, and people buy your console without worrying about future releases. Arguably, only the "hardcore" buy a system with the idea of waiting for a future game.
I think if the PS3 has a series of heavy hitters that changes the face of its game library, it could change long-term sales. If you look at the PS2, there was really no leveling-off period -- good games kept coming out throughout its life. Compare to the GameCube, which was on life-support by the end of its days, or the oXbox which seemed like it was killed even before the 360 came out. At the heart of it, games is what sells the console, and while a single game won't change anything for the long term, a good/varied library can change the long-term sales.
I don't think anyone will deny that the Wii's still doing well because Nintendo threw in Wii Sports, a game that's not amazing but does an excellent job showcasing what the Wii does, and makes it a lot of fun. It's kind of a "must own" game in the sense that it shows people what you can do, but everyone owns it by default in the US. But there's a lot of kudos to Nintendo to not just sitting back and saying "well everyone will play Wii Sports, we're good for a while, no need to get all these new games out in the first year." They've really gone whole hog to get all their major franchises out, which means people interested in a Wii will see new games (with characters they recognize) hitting the shelf consistently. And you still had Wii Sports to play the night you bought the thing, which is usually what people were interested in at least trying out anyway.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, and really has been for a while, that the console market is still primarily a casual market. The hardcore market is much smaller.
Nintendo has always been casual, starting with the NES, and let's face it, almost all of the big console hits starting with the Atari 2600, were casual machines. And most attempts to introduce hardcore consoles (from Turbo Grafix on down to the Dreamcast), have more or less flopped.
The only reason hardcore console gaming thrived a bit in the 2000s is because they cannibalized another group of hardcore gamers, the PC gamer. The PC gaming crowd of the 80s and 90s are the hardcore gamers, and they have largely been pulled away and PC gaming into the HD console group and PC gaming is as a result more or less dead. But that gave both Sony and Microsoft this false impression that the hardcore console market is an expanding market. It's not, the growth they saw were the transfer from the PC gaming market, the total number of hard core gamers is not growing nearly that fast, and that total number is really not big enough to fully support 2 hard core consoles.
And as a whole the hardcore gaming population is still much smaller than the casual group, as a result, the casual games and consoles will always dominate sales.
From that perspective, the big losers of this gen is Sony. Microsoft was always after the hardcore group, the xbox was always designed to pull the hardcore PC gaming group, and they have them. Sony on the other hand, owned the casual market with the PS2, and instead of building on that, they elected to go after the much smaller hardcore group with the PS3, and left their flank wide open for Nintendo to walk in and steal their casual market share. So they went from being dominant in the bigger casual market to fighting in the mud with Microsoft for the smaller hardcore market.
Nintendo really lucked out, they were able to walk in and pick up market share because Sony inexplicably decided to abandon the huge casual market.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
except WiiFit...
I'm sorry..
How do you mean? WiiFit won't change market positions, unless somehow the American balance boards malfunction and emit a lethal electric charge which kills all 10 million people who buy it.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
except WiiFit...
I'm sorry..
How do you mean? WiiFit won't change market positions, unless somehow the American balance boards malfunction and emit a lethal electric charge which kills all 10 million people who buy it.
Actually, that wouldn't even be a problem, because they'd already have bought the wii.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, and really has been for a while, that the console market is still primarily a casual market. The hardcore market is much smaller.
Nintendo has always been casual, starting with the NES, and let's face it, almost all of the big console hits starting with the Atari 2600, were casual machines. And most attempts to introduce hardcore consoles (from Turbo Grafix on down to the Dreamcast), have more or less flopped.
The only reason hardcore console gaming thrived a bit in the 2000s is because they cannibalized another group of hardcore gamers, the PC gamer. The PC gaming crowd of the 80s and 90s are the hardcore gamers, and they have largely been pulled away and PC gaming into the HD console group and PC gaming is as a result more or less dead. But that gave both Sony and Microsoft this false impression that the hardcore console market is an expanding market. It's not, the growth they saw were the transfer from the PC gaming market, the total number of hard core gamers is not growing nearly that fast, and that total number is really not big enough to fully support 2 hard core consoles.
And as a whole the hardcore gaming population is still much smaller than the casual group, as a result, the casual games and consoles will always dominate sales.
From that perspective, the big losers of this gen is Sony. Microsoft was always after the hardcore group, the xbox was always designed to pull the hardcore PC gaming group, and they have them. Sony on the other hand, owned the casual market with the PS2, and instead of building on that, they elected to go after the much smaller hardcore group with the PS3, and left their flank wide open for Nintendo to walk in and steal their casual market share. So they went from being dominant in the bigger casual market to fighting in the mud with Microsoft for the smaller hardcore market.
Nintendo really lucked out, they were able to walk in and pick up market share because Sony inexplicably decided to abandon the huge casual market.
Saying the casual market is bigger than the harcore market is like saying there are more computer users than Network Administrators in the world.... DUH.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
I think the evidence is pretty clear, and really has been for a while, that the console market is still primarily a casual market. The hardcore market is much smaller.
Nintendo has always been casual, starting with the NES, and let's face it, almost all of the big console hits starting with the Atari 2600, were casual machines. And most attempts to introduce hardcore consoles (from Turbo Grafix on down to the Dreamcast), have more or less flopped.
The only reason hardcore console gaming thrived a bit in the 2000s is because they cannibalized another group of hardcore gamers, the PC gamer. The PC gaming crowd of the 80s and 90s are the hardcore gamers, and they have largely been pulled away and PC gaming into the HD console group and PC gaming is as a result more or less dead. But that gave both Sony and Microsoft this false impression that the hardcore console market is an expanding market. It's not, the growth they saw were the transfer from the PC gaming market, the total number of hard core gamers is not growing nearly that fast, and that total number is really not big enough to fully support 2 hard core consoles.
And as a whole the hardcore gaming population is still much smaller than the casual group, as a result, the casual games and consoles will always dominate sales.
From that perspective, the big losers of this gen is Sony. Microsoft was always after the hardcore group, the xbox was always designed to pull the hardcore PC gaming group, and they have them. Sony on the other hand, owned the casual market with the PS2, and instead of building on that, they elected to go after the much smaller hardcore group with the PS3, and left their flank wide open for Nintendo to walk in and steal their casual market share. So they went from being dominant in the bigger casual market to fighting in the mud with Microsoft for the smaller hardcore market.
Nintendo really lucked out, they were able to walk in and pick up market share because Sony inexplicably decided to abandon the huge casual market.
Saying the casual market is bigger than the harcore market is like saying there are more computer users than Network Administrators in the world.... DUH.
Well, that's a duh that us vidja game nerds posting on enthusiast message boards need reminding of every now and again. :P Like it or not, the world doesn't revolve around us.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
except WiiFit...
I'm sorry..
How do you mean? WiiFit won't change market positions, unless somehow the American balance boards malfunction and emit a lethal electric charge which kills all 10 million people who buy it.
Actually, that wouldn't even be a problem, because they'd already have bought the wii.
But they'd be dead, and... in terms of market share... there'd be less people...owning...
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
except WiiFit...
I'm sorry..
How do you mean? WiiFit won't change market positions, unless somehow the American balance boards malfunction and emit a lethal electric charge which kills all 10 million people who buy it.
Actually, that wouldn't even be a problem, because they'd already have bought the wii.
I was referring to (and I should have cut down the quote tree to it) the quote "if GTA4 can't sell consoles no game can" just that if Nintendo does provide extra Wii's to support WiiFit's release, WiiFit will be selling consoles. If you consider it a game or not is another story as well.
I was referring to (and I should have cut down the quote tree to it) the quote "if GTA4 can't sell consoles no game can" just that if Nintendo does provide extra Wii's to support WiiFit's release, WiiFit will be selling consoles. If you consider it a game or not is another story as well.
Yeah, that was my point earlier- GTAIV didn't move consoles because of market conditions, not because 'games don't sell consoles.'
Then why is everybody acting so surprised when the Wii kicks the 360 and PS3 ass every time NPD numbers are released?
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
And oft-quoted professional analyst Pachter, who predicted there were sleeping hordes of PS2 owners that would suddenly wake up and swarm the earth buying PS3s when GTA4 was released.
Then why is everybody acting so surprised when the Wii kicks the 360 and PS3 ass every time NPD numbers are released?
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
Are there really people in the thread that think that? I would like to hope we're better than that. All the handwringing I see is how much more the Wii sells over the other two. I hope it's obvious to folks that ignoring everything else, a lower-priced product will generally sell more units than a higher-priced one.
Then why is everybody acting so surprised when the Wii kicks the 360 and PS3 ass every time NPD numbers are released?
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
Are there really people in the thread that think that? I would like to hope we're better than that. All the handwringing I see is how much more the Wii sells over the other two. I hope it's obvious to folks that ignoring everything else, a lower-priced product will generally sell more units than a higher-priced one.
BOOM.
I wonder which console would sell more if they were all the same price. Exactly the same price.
Then why is everybody acting so surprised when the Wii kicks the 360 and PS3 ass every time NPD numbers are released?
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
Are there really people in the thread that think that? I would like to hope we're better than that. All the handwringing I see is how much more the Wii sells over the other two. I hope it's obvious to folks that ignoring everything else, a lower-priced product will generally sell more units than a higher-priced one.
BOOM.
I wonder which console would sell more if they were all the same price. Exactly the same price.
Get on that JC. Make some calls.
Unfortunately, today's the first day in a long time that the Seattle area has seen sun and is above 70 degrees. Suffice to say, lots of people have taken the day off.
Then why is everybody acting so surprised when the Wii kicks the 360 and PS3 ass every time NPD numbers are released?
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
Are there really people in the thread that think that? I would like to hope we're better than that. All the handwringing I see is how much more the Wii sells over the other two. I hope it's obvious to folks that ignoring everything else, a lower-priced product will generally sell more units than a higher-priced one.
BOOM.
I wonder which console would sell more if they were all the same price. Exactly the same price.
Get on that JC. Make some calls.
What ever console has hits like Carnival Games, of course.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
Posts
There was, Nintendo publicly announced they were going to produce 1.8 million per month worldwide. Analysts (yeah yeah, but they get access to data we don't have) now say that's closer to 2 million per month. Wii production has actually been going up most of the time it's been out, though month-over-month increases were generally slow until March.
So I did miss an announcement. Okay, well that makes sense, except why until March?
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
The company is notoriously cautious with their economics (in this case, supply -- an excess can be costly) and the continued success of the Wii caught even them by surprise. New consoles generally stop selling out after a few months, while the Wii is closing in on two years of sell-outs. That's mind-boggling.
Plus, Nintendo's heavy hitters (Smash, Mario Kart, Wii Fit) started coming out in March, so they decided to go for it.
Recession != Depression. And technically, we're not in a recession yet, although many would agree that it's impending.
Also, recession/depression doesn't mean it affects everyone the same way. Sure, there will be plenty of people that have jobs and can pay the bills, but being in a recession means more people than usual won't.
Anyway, I mentioned it a few pages ago but I'll repeat again. I think the economic "malaise" the US seems to be in does affect sales. Not so much games, since $60 is still disposable to many, but certainly $300-400 is a lot. I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers out there that would love to play GTA IV, but they can't afford buying a 360 or PS3, the game, and whatever else that would be needed to play it. There are certainly lots of polls and surveys out there that show that Americans are becoming more and more worried about the economy.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
And that worry spills over to less money being spent, which in turn hurts the economy even more. Which is why the government thought the stimulus check would help, which it probably wont... But it's nice to have that disposable $600.
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
Perhaps, at least that's what the President would have you think, but we should avoid dragging politics into this. :P
So, stimulus checks started going out in May. I predict that's the next thing analysts and anti-Wii fanboys are going to latch onto as "reasons why May is going to be HUUUUUUGE". Millions of people spending their stimulus checks on a 360/PS3 and GTA IV? Yay for gaming!
Well, perhaps. We'll see how that turns out. (I'm still grumpy because I don't get a stimulus check
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Are you implying that Nintendo's been holding back production, or atleast its capacity to increase production? There was an interview posted here just a day or two ago where someone from Nintendo (forgot the name, which might be important...) upturned this belief, and said they literally have just been unable to move more consoles. I would buy that production increased in March, which lead to higher sales (I still believe Smash did affect this as well), but I don't think Nintendo 'went for it' in March specifically; at least, not in the sense that they had been holding back before.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
I got my $1500. Dunno what I'm going to do with it yet. Probably pay down the car loan a bit, but I gotta get something nice out of it. Perhaps the 500GB HDD, new graphics card, and camcorder I've been wanting to get.
I don't think that's incorrect. They were pretty surprised by demand. They've been more surprised by how long the demand has gone unsatisfied. You can't blame them for not immediately opening more plants when there's the potential that it could just waste money.
Yeah, I think he was responding more to the notion that Nintendo was artificially creating demand for hype.
Nonono. They haven't been creating a shortage. They had just been producing consoles at a "regular" rate, "regular" meaning "ample supplies for your average console." Which is around 300,000-400,000 on non-holiday months. But the Wii has been far from average.
The thing to do is to up production, right? Hold on a minute... doing so is costly. You have to make a contract with new, third-party factories, you have to figure out how many to make, etc. On top of that, if you do all that and you don't sell the excess supply, you're out a LOT of money.
So, the thinking goes at Nintendo a few months after the Wii launch, the console has been selling well so far, but it'll drop back down soon like every other console, right? It didn't. It defied history, and expectations... even Nintendo's. In interview after interview, they've been surprised at just how well the damn thing's been selling. They expected it to do well, but not THIS well.
So they gradually pushed production higher, seemingly believing Wii sales would drop back to something resembling normal. They didn't. This went on and on to March, when Nintendo's two biggest-selling, proven franchises (Smash and Kart) are coming out, along with a newcomer the mainstream media has been drooling over (Wii Fit, which will get the biggest marketing push Nintendo of America has EVER done). It makes sense that this convergence would give them the confidence to ship over 700,000 per month, which is just an absolutely INSANE amount outside the holidays.
Yet it still sold out. Now you see where I'm coming from?
Right, that's what the interview was focused on, which still implies they aren't 'holding anything back.'
And I didn't think that's what cloudeagle was saying, I just wanted to make sure.
I still believe Smash helped moved Wii's, just like Halo 3 and COD4 helped move PS3's and 360's. GTAIV's inability to do so is just a reflection of current market conditions.
EDIT: Yeah, that's what I thought you were saying eagle, I just didn't want to misinterpret. I think that's been the case for the Wii in March/April, but again, software has helped fuel those sales. Nintendo's decision to increase production was a result of upcoming software, and the insatiable demand for the Wii is a result of software.
All the comments about 'big releases don't push console sales' struck me a little odd, so I just wanted to check up on past numbers, which I think refute this belief.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
Something that's definitely possible.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Of course, I think a lot of it is like an extended "furby" craze or "tickle me elmo" craze, where a lot of people are buying them just because they're the in-thing. Which, hey, is awesome, the more people playing video games, the better. I think people who aren't "gamers" are snatching them up because it's a "fad" that's actually fun, and you don't have to be really good to have a really fun time with it.
I don't mean that in the "fleeting, unjustified" use of the terms, just in how the general populace seems to be reacting to the Wii. It's been out for quite some time, they're not easy to get, and everyone says they're a lot of fun and *easy* to play. So when people see them, they snatch them up even if they're not really into gaming. I think the anger from PS360 fanboys comes from the idea that, at any moment, everyone who actually wants a Wii will have been able to find one and then that's it. But the more people are playing them, the more *other* people want one.
I don't know what that means for future iterations of the Wii, and while people are buying new games I do think the analogies to the PS2 are pretty well warranted -- some people are picking it up for specific, high quality games, while others are picking them up because it's "the system to have" and buying some mediocre filler games because of a licensed character.
I also think it helps a lot that it's seen by parents as at least some physical activity, so they're buying them for kids without worrying about the kid zoning out in front of the telly.
But yeah, I hear more and more people who I would never expect to even think about video games talking about the Wii. There's enough demand for a $250 console like the Wii for seemingly most of the US populace ;D
I think you're missing what we're really saying. Big releases DO push console sales. Halo 3 did it, and COD4 may have been a factor for PS3 and 360 sales. And it's very, very unusual that GTA4 didn't.
What they DON'T do is change the proportion of sales in the long-term. Take Halo 3. The game was huge, and sales of the console doubled when it came out. But now, months out, has the game caused the 360 to gain marketshare over its competitors? Nope. It's still selling roughly the same proportion it has over the last year.
The long-term misconception from various parties has been things like "wait till GTA4, it'll cause the HD systems to sell better and catch up with the Wii!" Or "Wait till MGS4, it'll cause the PS3 to finish this generation ahead of the 360!" It's the idea that a game can "save" a system. Which has never, ever happened. That's what we're refuting, not the fact that people will buy a system for a specific game.
I didn't see that- all I saw was "if GTAIV can't move consoles then no game ever can or has ever!"
What I was pointing out is that games can move consoles, and the fact that GTAIV didn't reveals a lot about the state of the market. Specifically, no game, not even the 'game of the century' can change market positions, atleast at this point.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
Right, it boosts it for the short term; of course, it also adds to the library, and that library is what causes the long-term changes. We don't have enough consoles over similar time periods to really compare libraries, but most people are happy stating that the PS2 had no real advantages in its first year of sales. Crappy launch titles, people buying it "just as a DVD player," then GTA3 hits... and then a shitload of other high-quality titles hits, all before the 2nd year.
If anything, that's the strategy that Nintendo adopted for this generation -- all of its heavy hitters are out the door already, and the console is young. You put out a high-quality library ASAP, and people buy your console without worrying about future releases. Arguably, only the "hardcore" buy a system with the idea of waiting for a future game.
I think if the PS3 has a series of heavy hitters that changes the face of its game library, it could change long-term sales. If you look at the PS2, there was really no leveling-off period -- good games kept coming out throughout its life. Compare to the GameCube, which was on life-support by the end of its days, or the oXbox which seemed like it was killed even before the 360 came out. At the heart of it, games is what sells the console, and while a single game won't change anything for the long term, a good/varied library can change the long-term sales.
I don't think anyone will deny that the Wii's still doing well because Nintendo threw in Wii Sports, a game that's not amazing but does an excellent job showcasing what the Wii does, and makes it a lot of fun. It's kind of a "must own" game in the sense that it shows people what you can do, but everyone owns it by default in the US. But there's a lot of kudos to Nintendo to not just sitting back and saying "well everyone will play Wii Sports, we're good for a while, no need to get all these new games out in the first year." They've really gone whole hog to get all their major franchises out, which means people interested in a Wii will see new games (with characters they recognize) hitting the shelf consistently. And you still had Wii Sports to play the night you bought the thing, which is usually what people were interested in at least trying out anyway.
except WiiFit...
I'm sorry..
Nintendo has always been casual, starting with the NES, and let's face it, almost all of the big console hits starting with the Atari 2600, were casual machines. And most attempts to introduce hardcore consoles (from Turbo Grafix on down to the Dreamcast), have more or less flopped.
The only reason hardcore console gaming thrived a bit in the 2000s is because they cannibalized another group of hardcore gamers, the PC gamer. The PC gaming crowd of the 80s and 90s are the hardcore gamers, and they have largely been pulled away and PC gaming into the HD console group and PC gaming is as a result more or less dead. But that gave both Sony and Microsoft this false impression that the hardcore console market is an expanding market. It's not, the growth they saw were the transfer from the PC gaming market, the total number of hard core gamers is not growing nearly that fast, and that total number is really not big enough to fully support 2 hard core consoles.
And as a whole the hardcore gaming population is still much smaller than the casual group, as a result, the casual games and consoles will always dominate sales.
From that perspective, the big losers of this gen is Sony. Microsoft was always after the hardcore group, the xbox was always designed to pull the hardcore PC gaming group, and they have them. Sony on the other hand, owned the casual market with the PS2, and instead of building on that, they elected to go after the much smaller hardcore group with the PS3, and left their flank wide open for Nintendo to walk in and steal their casual market share. So they went from being dominant in the bigger casual market to fighting in the mud with Microsoft for the smaller hardcore market.
Nintendo really lucked out, they were able to walk in and pick up market share because Sony inexplicably decided to abandon the huge casual market.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
How do you mean? WiiFit won't change market positions, unless somehow the American balance boards malfunction and emit a lethal electric charge which kills all 10 million people who buy it.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
Actually, that wouldn't even be a problem, because they'd already have bought the wii.
Saying the casual market is bigger than the harcore market is like saying there are more computer users than Network Administrators in the world.... DUH.
Well, that's a duh that us vidja game nerds posting on enthusiast message boards need reminding of every now and again. :P Like it or not, the world doesn't revolve around us.
But they'd be dead, and... in terms of market share... there'd be less people...owning...
Nevermind.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
I was referring to (and I should have cut down the quote tree to it) the quote "if GTA4 can't sell consoles no game can" just that if Nintendo does provide extra Wii's to support WiiFit's release, WiiFit will be selling consoles. If you consider it a game or not is another story as well.
Because the scale of the kicking gets bigger every time.
Before it was a mere boot.
Now it is a titanic steel boot, with spikes.
Who is still suprised at this point?
All the handwringing people in this thread for starters. And I won't even bring up GAF.
Yeah, that was my point earlier- GTAIV didn't move consoles because of market conditions, not because 'games don't sell consoles.'
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
And oft-quoted professional analyst Pachter, who predicted there were sleeping hordes of PS2 owners that would suddenly wake up and swarm the earth buying PS3s when GTA4 was released.
Are there really people in the thread that think that? I would like to hope we're better than that. All the handwringing I see is how much more the Wii sells over the other two. I hope it's obvious to folks that ignoring everything else, a lower-priced product will generally sell more units than a higher-priced one.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
BOOM.
I wonder which console would sell more if they were all the same price. Exactly the same price.
Get on that JC. Make some calls.
Unfortunately, today's the first day in a long time that the Seattle area has seen sun and is above 70 degrees. Suffice to say, lots of people have taken the day off.
Wait, why am I still in the office? :P
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
What ever console has hits like Carnival Games, of course.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz