Though the music game genre is widely regarded as being in decline, Activision Blizzard has no intention of holding back with a three-pronged assault planned for this autumn – complete with two brand new IPs.
First off, the long-rumoured DJ Hero has now finally received an official corporate acknowledgement, along with pictures of the new turntable peripheral. The game will touch on genres including R&B, electronica, Motown, dance and hip-hop.
New IP Band Hero directs the established multi-instrument music genre away from heavy metal and toward Top 40 charts territory for the first time, with a musical selection specifically designed to appeal to the entire family. Like Guitar Hero, it will use guitar, drums, bass and microphones.
Also revealed today is Guitar Hero 5, a title that will continue the success enjoyed by immediate predecessor Guitar Hero World Tour. New is the ability to drop in and out of songs and change band members and difficulty levels on the fly.
“Guitar Hero has made music social again and has become one of the most popular ways to experience music,” Guitar Hero franchise president and CEO Dan Rosensweig stated.
“Today’s fans enjoy a variety of music and are looking for more ways to engage with their favourite songs, artists and fellow fans. These games will let them listen, participate and socialize with music in ways they have never been able to before.”
Rape it, rape it good.
This comic get's funnier and funnier as time goes by.
So Terminal Reality is kind of annoyed at their game of Musical Publishers.
Ghostbusters: The Video Game developer Terminal Reality has expressed frustration at publishing deals that have seen the game passed around to three different companies in the past year.
The developer admitted that it has had no say in publishing or distribution decisions, as the game has been pushed from Activision to Atari, and now Sony in Europe.
"It is not the ideal situation for a developer like Terminal Reality as we really enjoy a collaborative relationship when we work with publishers, so that has had to be rebooted every time the game changes hands," offered vice president Joe Kreiner, speaking exclusively to GamesIndustry.biz.
"As an independent developer that has been in business for 15 years, Terminal Reality has learned the importance of making good partnership decisions when we take a look at what projects we will do. If you would have told me the roller coaster ride we were in for on this project three years ago I would have said that you are crazy and yet here we are," he added.
...
"All I can say from the Terminal Reality perspective is that the game is done on all platforms. We are really pleased with the final result and happy that it is ready for the fans on every platform whenever the decision is made to release it."
He added: "We do not want the consumer to be confused as that can hurt sales. Our hope is that this is a transparent change to the gamer and that the desire to play the next authentic chapter of Ghostbusters is a draw that overcomes any complications."
He also said that the complicated publishing partnerships were a sign of the strain the current economic environment is placing on companies.
"I think it speaks to the impact of the current economic climate that publishers need to be fluid and able to help each other out with business arrangements that allow product to get into the hands of the fans."
As Terminal Reality hasn't been consulted on publishing deals, the team has focused all its efforts on refining the quality of the finished product, said Kreiner.
"As a developer these distribution decisions are handled far above our level and is not been something that we would have a say in.
"We have just focused on keeping the teams attention on making the best game we possibly can. We are confident that everything is being done to make sure the game gets the support it needs and will be available to Ghostbusters fans around the world."
It seems that Nintendo hit their operating income number at $5.63 billion.
That means that Nintendo's profits for this year roughly match those from Sony's game division from it's launch to the time where the PS3 put them in the red. It's madness.
Madness? THIS! -
...
Yeah, we're not doing that anymore, right?
But seriously, are we talking about Sony's entire trysting gaming division, from its inception? That can't be right. They had the PS and the PS2. They had Tony Hawk. They had years of sports games with sport stars and actual stadiums in them. That must result in the financial equivalent of taking all our respective mothers to its bed!
I don't have the numbers on hand, but the PS and PS2, despite their success, weren't nearly as profitable as you'd expect them to be. For whatever reason, Sony isn't great about controlling its costs. Nintendo, on the other hand, is stupidly efficient, to the point that even the struggling Gamecube made them money. So big success + stupidly efficient = holy shit Scrooge McDuck moneybin.
Well, while the GameCube made them money, I'm not sure if it was enough just by itself to fund Nintendo entirely (especially for R&D on projects like the Wii). That's why their portable business was so important. Was it the GBA SP that was out around the time of the GC? I'm guessing the profit from that side of the house dwarfed that of the console side.
In terms of controlling costs, Nintendo has to be super efficient because games is all it does. They can't fall back on alternate revenue streams the same way Sony and MS can. Hence, they can seem pretty damn conservative in some of their business practices. For example, I believe they have very few full-time staff, compared to other companies, preferring to outsource/vendor much of their work. For a company that does so much business in the US, it's surprising just how small their Redmond HQ is (both in size and staff). That's pretty darn efficient.
So Terminal Reality is kind of annoyed at their game of Musical Publishers.
Ghostbusters: The Video Game developer Terminal Reality has expressed frustration at publishing deals that have seen the game passed around to three different companies in the past year.
The developer admitted that it has had no say in publishing or distribution decisions, as the game has been pushed from Activision to Atari, and now Sony in Europe.
"It is not the ideal situation for a developer like Terminal Reality as we really enjoy a collaborative relationship when we work with publishers, so that has had to be rebooted every time the game changes hands," offered vice president Joe Kreiner, speaking exclusively to GamesIndustry.biz.
"As an independent developer that has been in business for 15 years, Terminal Reality has learned the importance of making good partnership decisions when we take a look at what projects we will do. If you would have told me the roller coaster ride we were in for on this project three years ago I would have said that you are crazy and yet here we are," he added.
...
"All I can say from the Terminal Reality perspective is that the game is done on all platforms. We are really pleased with the final result and happy that it is ready for the fans on every platform whenever the decision is made to release it."
He added: "We do not want the consumer to be confused as that can hurt sales. Our hope is that this is a transparent change to the gamer and that the desire to play the next authentic chapter of Ghostbusters is a draw that overcomes any complications."
He also said that the complicated publishing partnerships were a sign of the strain the current economic environment is placing on companies.
"I think it speaks to the impact of the current economic climate that publishers need to be fluid and able to help each other out with business arrangements that allow product to get into the hands of the fans."
As Terminal Reality hasn't been consulted on publishing deals, the team has focused all its efforts on refining the quality of the finished product, said Kreiner.
"As a developer these distribution decisions are handled far above our level and is not been something that we would have a say in.
"We have just focused on keeping the teams attention on making the best game we possibly can. We are confident that everything is being done to make sure the game gets the support it needs and will be available to Ghostbusters fans around the world."
At this point, I don't think any of them will relax until the games actually start showing up on shelves.
From the way that reads, it sounds like they still have their shit together. Either they were able to handle the upheaval the publishing changes caused, or there was no upheaval to begin with.
I bought my Gamecube on a whim with left over financial aid money from college.
It was such a great system.
We all know how college is usually a time of hedonism for young peoples.
I lost hundreds of hours to Double Dash.
Gamecube 4 lyfe.
I have no idea if they have a strong case or not.
I imagine they do. I think that there's some law that keeps the students names from being used in the game. I would imagine that could apply to likeness as well.
At this point, I don't think any of them will relax until the games actually start showing up on shelves.
Hopefully the next time Activision approaches them for something, they'll tell em to go get fucked.
Well, while the GameCube made them money, I'm not sure if it was enough just by itself to fund Nintendo entirely (especially for R&D on projects like the Wii). That's why their portable business was so important. Was it the GBA SP that was out around the time of the GC? I'm guessing the profit from that side of the house dwarfed that of the console side.
This.
I remember how this scenario got people to suspect that Nintendo is run by two divisions. Home hardware and portable. I believe Matt Assamassina was the one who first came out and said it. Regardless, it came from IGN, and that is the most plausible of the idiotic things that ever came from that site.
It seems that Nintendo hit their operating income number at $5.63 billion.
That means that Nintendo's profits for this year roughly match those from Sony's game division from it's launch to the time where the PS3 put them in the red. It's madness.
Madness? THIS! -
...
Yeah, we're not doing that anymore, right?
But seriously, are we talking about Sony's entire trysting gaming division, from its inception? That can't be right. They had the PS and the PS2. They had Tony Hawk. They had years of sports games with sport stars and actual stadiums in them. That must result in the financial equivalent of taking all our respective mothers to its bed!
I don't have the numbers on hand, but the PS and PS2, despite their success, weren't nearly as profitable as you'd expect them to be. For whatever reason, Sony isn't great about controlling its costs. Nintendo, on the other hand, is stupidly efficient, to the point that even the struggling Gamecube made them money. So big success + stupidly efficient = holy shit Scrooge McDuck moneybin.
Well, while the GameCube made them money, I'm not sure if it was enough just by itself to fund Nintendo entirely (especially for R&D on projects like the Wii). That's why their portable business was so important. Was it the GBA SP that was out around the time of the GC? I'm guessing the profit from that side of the house dwarfed that of the console side.
In terms of controlling costs, Nintendo has to be super efficient because games is all it does. They can't fall back on alternate revenue streams the same way Sony and MS can. Hence, they can seem pretty damn conservative in some of their business practices. For example, I believe they have very few full-time staff, compared to other companies, preferring to outsource/vendor much of their work. For a company that does so much business in the US, it's surprising just how small their Redmond HQ is (both in size and staff). That's pretty darn efficient.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Nintendo is simply better run and has a better business model than the rest of the industry. In bad times it loses less money, if it loses them money at all, and in good times it makes more money. I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
Again Nintendo for now is making more money each year than Sony's game division managed to make on the PS1 PS2 over their entire lifetimes (well not PS2 sales after the PS3 launch). The Wii and DS are selling quickly but their yearly sales can't compare to the lifetime sales of the two biggest home consoles in history. Seriously.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Oh, sure, the Gamecube by itself probably wouldn't have made Nintendo a big profit, but it was profit nonetheless. That's preferable to a loss any day.
Oh, sure, the Gamecube by itself probably wouldn't have made Nintendo a big profit, but it was profit nonetheless. That's preferable to a loss any day.
I don't know if you can say that universally. I mean, being in the loser's position, think about all the memories you're making.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
Rooks and I have gone at this a lot in the past but my take is that "investing" in the games industry is a bad strategy. The landscape changes too fast so you are in effect building on sand.
People also claim that they are fighting defensively against some other company getting the type of presence in the living room that might compete with their PC monopoly, but the type of games their systems have attracted leave them stuck in a very narrow demographic. I mean I'm pretty sure that women have as much say about what goes on in the living room as do men.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
Rooks and I have gone at this a lot in the past but my take is that "investing" in the games industry is a bad strategy. The landscape changes too fast so you are in effect building on sand.
People also claim that they are fighting defensively against some other company getting the type of presence in the living room that might compete with their PC monopoly, but the type of games their systems have attracted leave them stuck in a very narrow demographic. I mean I'm pretty sure that women have as much say about what goes on in the living room as do men.
It has worked to a certain extent already. My wife uses the xbox as much as I do these days, for netflix. I truly do believe the only reason they did the xbox was to get their software into the living room. If Sega had continued on and used their software like they did in the Dreamcast there is a good chance there never would have been an xbox. Just my opionion though.
Microsoft has gone from being a laughing stock in the gaming industry to being the most beloved system of hardcore gamers & developers alike and with XNA Community Games, they're fostering love from the indie community & upcoming developers as well. Their system is profitable now and looks to become more profitable in the future with Live being especially profitable. They're making big strides in general multimedia/casual gaming with stuff like Netflix & interactive game shows (not sure if it'll take off, but 1 vs 100 just entered beta so we'll find out soon enough). In short, they've shown steady improvement and I wouldn't be surprised if next generation, Microsoft ends up on top in the home console space thanks to a devoted fan base and fantastic 3rd party support (with Nintendo & Apple fighting it out in the portable arena).
I'd say the investment is paying off and will pay off even more in the future.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
Rooks and I have gone at this a lot in the past but my take is that "investing" in the games industry is a bad strategy. The landscape changes too fast so you are in effect building on sand.
People also claim that they are fighting defensively against some other company getting the type of presence in the living room that might compete with their PC monopoly, but the type of games their systems have attracted leave them stuck in a very narrow demographic. I mean I'm pretty sure that women have as much say about what goes on in the living room as do men.
Tell me how it's all shooters and racing games for 16-24 year-old jocks, please.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
In the home console market, they essentially went from 'nonexistent' to a major contender. Microsoft Games development was all on PC before 2001, right? That's what I remember.
Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where that wouldn't have required a huge investment. Nintendo and Sony had more than ten years (way more in the case of Nintendo) to ease themselves in. Though I suppose Sony was quite abrupt in the beginning, the market was pretty different back then.
I don't know if rushing in was a good idea, necessarily, but that's the choice Microsoft made. I guess they could have eased their way in, though I for one would probably be much more worse off in terms of video gaming--well, that, and the idea of unified online gaming. I'll stop here, because it's getting too much into the 'what if's'.
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
More or less, though I'm still a little amazed Sony didn't make more money at their peak. And RROD was a MAJOR fuckup financially speaking, though Microsoft's plan finally seems to be paying off.
Amid all this is more and more rumbling that Apple sees itself fit to have a bigger slice, which is another sign that the evolution of mobiles and the rise of (gnur...) "casuals" could have some serious effects. I wonder what could be the cause - Microsoft's success, Nintendo's success or Sony's troubles?
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
Also the only reason the 360 is a partial success is that Sony tried to use the PS3 to for BR to victory over HD-DVD. Otherwise they'd be in far, far worse shape.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
MS is doing OK. It is at least breaking even and might make up the sunk cost from launching the thing.
Hm. If this is anywhere remotely true, than a strong possibility is that Nintendo pissed off Monolith with the changes, Monolith (fighting the changes) pissed off Nintendo, and since Nintendo was on the fence about the game's earning potential anyway, just said "fuck it." That truly sucks.
Anyway, Nintendo. They didn't do bad at all, given the recession's on. Wii games sold are quite well, but holy shit at the PS2's numbers. I suspect that record isn't going to fall, at least not this gen. (Unless the DS manages it.)
That sounds like that is what happened.
I'm thinking that the Wii will sell around PS1 numbers or possibly slightly less. It will almost certainly do better than any previous Nintendo console, but that isn't saying a whole lot as the market has grown since Nintendo ruled the console roost.
I dunno. The thing's been a juggernaut for a year solid, so I think there's a very good chance it'll pass it. But has there ever been a trend of a single peripheral selling well for the life of a console? Then again this generation's been one for upending past trends.
I'd bet on it doing so or coming within spitting distance, with the PS3 pushing ahead as the generation drags on.
Of course this assumes that Sony eventually drops the price on the goddamn thing. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if the PS3's price doesn't drop until the PS4 is announced.
Anybody want to take bets on whether Wii Fit will outsell the PS3 hardware LTD sales?
I'd be interested to see how well it did in different regions - see if there's any kind of relation between obesity rates and sales. Or is it actually selling well as a game rather then (faux) fitness device?
I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
More or less, though I'm still a little amazed Sony didn't make more money at their peak. And RROD was a MAJOR fuckup financially speaking, though Microsoft's plan finally seems to be paying off.
And not to mention that barring Microsoft and Sony entering the console market, there's no way Nintendo could have maintained an unchallenged console and handheld monopoly for 2-3 generations without some other large corporations smelling cash and jumping into the console market.
It's actually broken 50 mill now, after two years, three christmases and four months of 2009. The PS (with all iterations) reached 102 million by July 2008, and was released in late '94 in Japan and the rest in September '95 (obligatory "god I'm old" reaction).
If the Wii manages to hang in there (baby) - I have no idea if it will - it could maybe beat that. Considering the profit per unit from launch and the fact that the interior of the Wii must have become cheaper even while the price has stuck, Nintendo could just buy all the oil in the world and make some Bond-villain money even if the Wii hits this fabled saturation point all the analysts have pulled out of their collective asses.
Does anyone have any idea how much Nintendo has made from the DS? They must be profiting on that little guy as well. Because this is freaky - considering how many consoles Sony have sold, and considering how little time Nintendo has had the Wii/DS out, it really is a lesson in how tough this business is that Nintendo has earned all the money Sony have earned in half the number of generations.
If only they could start providing a game gallery as excellent as their sales.
I dunno. The thing's been a juggernaut for a year solid, so I think there's a very good chance it'll pass it. But has there ever been a trend of a single peripheral selling well for the life of a console? Then again this generation's been one for upending past trends.
I'd bet on it doing so or coming within spitting distance, with the PS3 pushing ahead as the generation drags on.
Of course this assumes that Sony eventually drops the price on the goddamn thing. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if the PS3's price doesn't drop until the PS4 is announced.
Speaking of profits and the PS3's pricing - have they started to earn back a little money on the units or at least the good game attach rate per unit yet? 'Cuz, you know, if not, this shit be officially off the hizzooks.
So here's an interesting suit. Seems college football players are pissed at EA for allowing people to rename their strangely familiar-looking characters in the NCAA games.
Former Nebraska quarterback Samuel Keller is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging that Electronic Arts’ NCAA Football series unlawfully uses the likenesses of not only Keller, but the hundreds of college athletes the games feature.
Most damning however, is Keller’s assertion that EA is in collusion with the NCAA. SF Weekly explains:
The suit opens up strong, claiming in its first sentence that it “arises out of the blatant and unlawful use of National Collegiate Athletic Association (’NCAA’) student likenesses in videogames produced by Electronic Arts … to increase sales and profits.” This, the complaint continues, is abetted with a wink-and-nod assist from the NCAA, which “intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing student athletes’ names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players’ names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds.”
This, the suit alleges, is a symbiotic relationship between the NCAA and EA that leaves the student athletes — who make this whole venture possible — empty-handed.
Keller’s suit (.pdf) follows almost immediately on the heels of a somewhat similar suit leveled against EA by former NFL players, alleging that the firm’s John Madden Football games also use their likenesses illegally.
This is Samuel Keller. A quarterback so bad he was never drafted and even the Oakland Raiders didn't want him around. Now he's looking for a payday...
EA has been doing this 'rename the generic players' for years and all of a sudden it's a problem now? All EA has to point out is that there are sports games that exist without proper player licensing and have used generic names and likenesses. They can even point out a player like Barry Bonds who had refused to license himself and EA had to rename his doppelganger. And they can even point out they've been following NCAA guidelines on the matter (at least I'm pretty sure they are...).
Speaking of profits and the PS3's pricing - have they started to earn back a little money on the units or at least the good game attach rate per unit yet? 'Cuz, you know, if not, this shit be officially off the hizzooks.
Last quarter (Oct-Dec 2008) Sony's game division essentially broke even. If the PSP and PS2 are making profits then the PS3 is still losing them money, including software and royalties from 3rd parties.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
Anybody want to take bets on whether Wii Fit will outsell the PS3 hardware LTD sales?
I'd be interested to see how well it did in different regions - see if there's any kind of relation between obesity rates and sales. Or is it actually selling well as a game rather then (faux) fitness device?
It passed the PS3 in Japan, dominates sales charts in Europe and is selling tons upon tons in the US. What more do you want?
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Sorry, but how is recognizing an untapped market and developing products and marketing for it not good business strategy on Nintendo's part?
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Sorry, but how is recognizing an untapped market and developing products and marketing for it not good business strategy on Nintendo's part?
Besides, we're not talking about sales volume, but profits. The Wii is selling in the ballpark of the PS2 in its heyday, yet it's making Nintendo a lot more money than the PS2 did for Sony. As I said, the secret is that they are whizzes at controlling their costs, while Sony isn't. Nintendo still made a profit when the N64/Cube was floundering and the GBA cash cow hadn't hit.
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Sorry, but how is recognizing an untapped market and developing products and marketing for it not good business strategy on Nintendo's part?
The part where it was a serious risk if nobody gave a shit.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Didn't we determine something about how the casual market was bad and we needed to spend more time trying to court the 'intermediate' market? Or something? Yeah... Poor Nintendo... They totally fucked up this generation.
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Sorry, but how is recognizing an untapped market and developing products and marketing for it not good business strategy on Nintendo's part?
The part where it was a serious risk if nobody gave a shit.
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Why are people getting worked up that a business is doing something that makes them large quantities of money as opposed to doing something that is quite clearly not making money?
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Didn't we determine something about how the casual market was bad and we needed to spend more time trying to court the 'intermediate' market? Or something? Yeah... Poor Nintendo... They totally fucked up this generation.
How so? As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo hasn't made video games or consoles since like 1998. Doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying video games today.
Posts
This comic get's funnier and funnier as time goes by.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/terminal-reality-frustrated-at-ghostbusters-merry-go-round
At this point, I don't think any of them will relax until the games actually start showing up on shelves.
Well, while the GameCube made them money, I'm not sure if it was enough just by itself to fund Nintendo entirely (especially for R&D on projects like the Wii). That's why their portable business was so important. Was it the GBA SP that was out around the time of the GC? I'm guessing the profit from that side of the house dwarfed that of the console side.
In terms of controlling costs, Nintendo has to be super efficient because games is all it does. They can't fall back on alternate revenue streams the same way Sony and MS can. Hence, they can seem pretty damn conservative in some of their business practices. For example, I believe they have very few full-time staff, compared to other companies, preferring to outsource/vendor much of their work. For a company that does so much business in the US, it's surprising just how small their Redmond HQ is (both in size and staff). That's pretty darn efficient.
- 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
From the way that reads, it sounds like they still have their shit together. Either they were able to handle the upheaval the publishing changes caused, or there was no upheaval to begin with.
We all know how college is usually a time of hedonism for young peoples.
I lost hundreds of hours to Double Dash.
Gamecube 4 lyfe.
I imagine they do. I think that there's some law that keeps the students names from being used in the game. I would imagine that could apply to likeness as well.
Hopefully the next time Activision approaches them for something, they'll tell em to go get fucked.
This.
I remember how this scenario got people to suspect that Nintendo is run by two divisions. Home hardware and portable. I believe Matt Assamassina was the one who first came out and said it. Regardless, it came from IGN, and that is the most plausible of the idiotic things that ever came from that site.
If by fall back on alternate revenue streams you mean they can't afford to lose many billions of dollars with no real prospect of ever making them back, sure.
And it spurious to say that Nintnedo is efficient because they have to be. Plenty of companies "have" to be efficient but still they aren't and they go out of business. There is no lack of examples in the games industry even as revenues continue to climb. Furthermore, in previous years Sony did in fact need the money from the games division and they need that money now. MS can afford to do whatever but, really, I'd think it better to spend their billions on spaceflight or fighting malaria in Africa rather than on the XBOX.
Nintendo is simply better run and has a better business model than the rest of the industry. In bad times it loses less money, if it loses them money at all, and in good times it makes more money. I'm not sure how the execs in charge of Sony and MS's game divisions can justify what they've been up to the last 10 years since the whole "bet big money to make big money" strategy has been shown to be entirely without merit.
Again Nintendo for now is making more money each year than Sony's game division managed to make on the PS1 PS2 over their entire lifetimes (well not PS2 sales after the PS3 launch). The Wii and DS are selling quickly but their yearly sales can't compare to the lifetime sales of the two biggest home consoles in history. Seriously.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I don't know if you can say that universally. I mean, being in the loser's position, think about all the memories you're making.
Save for the fact that MS isn't just blowing billions on the xbox in the name of fun or charity. They are doing it as an investment into the direct future of the company.
Rooks and I have gone at this a lot in the past but my take is that "investing" in the games industry is a bad strategy. The landscape changes too fast so you are in effect building on sand.
People also claim that they are fighting defensively against some other company getting the type of presence in the living room that might compete with their PC monopoly, but the type of games their systems have attracted leave them stuck in a very narrow demographic. I mean I'm pretty sure that women have as much say about what goes on in the living room as do men.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It has worked to a certain extent already. My wife uses the xbox as much as I do these days, for netflix. I truly do believe the only reason they did the xbox was to get their software into the living room. If Sega had continued on and used their software like they did in the Dreamcast there is a good chance there never would have been an xbox. Just my opionion though.
What, really? Get the fuck outa here. Not in my house, bizatch!
I'd say the investment is paying off and will pay off even more in the future.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Tell me how it's all shooters and racing games for 16-24 year-old jocks, please.
In the home console market, they essentially went from 'nonexistent' to a major contender. Microsoft Games development was all on PC before 2001, right? That's what I remember.
Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where that wouldn't have required a huge investment. Nintendo and Sony had more than ten years (way more in the case of Nintendo) to ease themselves in. Though I suppose Sony was quite abrupt in the beginning, the market was pretty different back then.
I don't know if rushing in was a good idea, necessarily, but that's the choice Microsoft made. I guess they could have eased their way in, though I for one would probably be much more worse off in terms of video gaming--well, that, and the idea of unified online gaming. I'll stop here, because it's getting too much into the 'what if's'.
To be fair, Sony's strategy was was working pretty damn well till the ps3 hit. Also MS seems to be doing ok, and if they hadn't made two major mistakes would be great. (Not owning the tech in oxbox, and RROD on the 360)
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
More or less, though I'm still a little amazed Sony didn't make more money at their peak. And RROD was a MAJOR fuckup financially speaking, though Microsoft's plan finally seems to be paying off.
In it's heyday Sony's game division was lucky to be 1/5 as profitable as Nintendo is now. Microsoft's is so far in the whole they can't even see sunlight.
Also the only reason the 360 is a partial success is that Sony tried to use the PS3 to for BR to victory over HD-DVD. Otherwise they'd be in far, far worse shape.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That sounds like that is what happened.
I'm thinking that the Wii will sell around PS1 numbers or possibly slightly less. It will almost certainly do better than any previous Nintendo console, but that isn't saying a whole lot as the market has grown since Nintendo ruled the console roost.
I'd bet on it doing so or coming within spitting distance, with the PS3 pushing ahead as the generation drags on.
Of course this assumes that Sony eventually drops the price on the goddamn thing. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if the PS3's price doesn't drop until the PS4 is announced.
I'd be interested to see how well it did in different regions - see if there's any kind of relation between obesity rates and sales. Or is it actually selling well as a game rather then (faux) fitness device?
And not to mention that barring Microsoft and Sony entering the console market, there's no way Nintendo could have maintained an unchallenged console and handheld monopoly for 2-3 generations without some other large corporations smelling cash and jumping into the console market.
If the Wii manages to hang in there (baby) - I have no idea if it will - it could maybe beat that. Considering the profit per unit from launch and the fact that the interior of the Wii must have become cheaper even while the price has stuck, Nintendo could just buy all the oil in the world and make some Bond-villain money even if the Wii hits this fabled saturation point all the analysts have pulled out of their collective asses.
Does anyone have any idea how much Nintendo has made from the DS? They must be profiting on that little guy as well. Because this is freaky - considering how many consoles Sony have sold, and considering how little time Nintendo has had the Wii/DS out, it really is a lesson in how tough this business is that Nintendo has earned all the money Sony have earned in half the number of generations.
If only they could start providing a game gallery as excellent as their sales.
EDIT:
Speaking of profits and the PS3's pricing - have they started to earn back a little money on the units or at least the good game attach rate per unit yet? 'Cuz, you know, if not, this shit be officially off the hizzooks.
This is Samuel Keller. A quarterback so bad he was never drafted and even the Oakland Raiders didn't want him around. Now he's looking for a payday...
EA has been doing this 'rename the generic players' for years and all of a sudden it's a problem now? All EA has to point out is that there are sports games that exist without proper player licensing and have used generic names and likenesses. They can even point out a player like Barry Bonds who had refused to license himself and EA had to rename his doppelganger. And they can even point out they've been following NCAA guidelines on the matter (at least I'm pretty sure they are...).
Last quarter (Oct-Dec 2008) Sony's game division essentially broke even. If the PSP and PS2 are making profits then the PS3 is still losing them money, including software and royalties from 3rd parties.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
The only reason why Nintendo is super profitable now is that they successfully tapped into the casual market. (Wii, DS) Its not a fault of MS or Sony's business strategy, its just Nintendo took a chance, tried something new and got lucky. My point is, its not the business strategy or even price that caused Nintendo to win big, its the "control games with movement!".
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
It will pass it but I don't know if it will stay ahead. I mean Wii Fit can't possibly have longer legs than the PS3, right?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It passed the PS3 in Japan, dominates sales charts in Europe and is selling tons upon tons in the US. What more do you want?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Sorry, but how is recognizing an untapped market and developing products and marketing for it not good business strategy on Nintendo's part?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
Besides, we're not talking about sales volume, but profits. The Wii is selling in the ballpark of the PS2 in its heyday, yet it's making Nintendo a lot more money than the PS2 did for Sony. As I said, the secret is that they are whizzes at controlling their costs, while Sony isn't. Nintendo still made a profit when the N64/Cube was floundering and the GBA cash cow hadn't hit.
The part where it was a serious risk if nobody gave a shit.
Because they apparantly feel threatened that their hobby got less elitist and cliquey.
Didn't we determine something about how the casual market was bad and we needed to spend more time trying to court the 'intermediate' market? Or something? Yeah... Poor Nintendo... They totally fucked up this generation.
Hmmm, the risks of chasing after the types of people that care about HD graphics are far far higher. That's why Nintendo's business is simply better: the best case and worst case scenario are both better.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
How so? As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo hasn't made video games or consoles since like 1998. Doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying video games today.
Why does it matter who's buying Wiis?