Of course Sony should push forward; every new generation is a chance for a new king of the mountain (or at least improvement). Though personally I think the company would be well-served with an overhaul of how they develop consoles. But that may be inevitable, no one can rely on HOLY SHIT GRAFFIX anymore.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
When you look at actual game sales, most Wii games aren't up at the top, its mostly Xbox/ps3/crossplatform stuff.
Nintendo is simply better at running a business than the other two, and also is an exclusively video game based business, unlike the other two.
They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Wii is way overpriced if you consider the cost of the components (although obviously, not overpriced when you consider customer demand). The system can't have cost that much more than the Gamecube to begin with (a system that was selling for around $100 at the time) and wasn't there a report a few months ago that estimated that Wii production costs had dropped by quite a bit since launch? They could probably drop the price of the Wii to $100 now if they really wanted to.
And that nicely illustrates the biggest difference between Nintendo & other console companies. Nintendo is purely focused on gaming so immediate profit is #1. Microsoft & Sony have many divisions and so immediate profit is not always as important as improving their brand in general. I wonder how many computers & TVs sold back in the day based on the name recognition that they got from the Playstation's success.
EDIT: I wouldn't say that Nintendo is better at running a business; they're just focused on a single thing.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
When you look at actual game sales, most Wii games aren't up at the top, its mostly Xbox/ps3/crossplatform stuff.
Nintendo is simply better at running a business than the other two, and also is an exclusively video game based business, unlike the other two.
well the wii definitely sells more software overall...which kind of supports what you're saying :P
They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Wii is way overpriced if you consider the cost of the components (although obviously, not overpriced when you consider customer demand). The system can't have cost that much more than the Gamecube to begin with (a system that was selling for around $100 at the time) and wasn't there a report a few months ago that estimated that Wii production costs had dropped by quite a bit since launch? They could probably drop the price of the Wii to $100 now if they really wanted to.
And that nicely illustrates the biggest difference between Nintendo & other console companies. Nintendo is purely focused on gaming so immediate profit is #1. Microsoft & Sony have many divisions and so immediate profit is not always as important as improving their brand in general. I wonder how many computers & TVs sold back in the day based on the name recognition that they got from the Playstation's success.
EDIT: I wouldn't say that Nintendo is better at running a business; they're just focused on a single thing.
If memory serves, when the Wii launched iSuppli estimated each one cost just $170 to make. By contrast, every PS3 made cost $800-$900. So yes, Nintendo can push the price drop button at any time, though financially speaking they'd be fools to do so now. And it also shows how badly Sony contains costs.
It can be hard to compare Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft as a whole since those two are absolutely ginormous, while Nintendo is merely huge. But for a company of its size, Nintendo is doing aces at the moment.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
When you look at actual game sales, most Wii games aren't up at the top, its mostly Xbox/ps3/crossplatform stuff.
Nintendo is simply better at running a business than the other two, and also is an exclusively video game based business, unlike the other two.
well the wii definitely sells more software overall...which kind of supports what you're saying :P
Exactly. The Wii's business model is to sell to literally everyone. Therefore it will have the most overall console sales and games sales.
The other two sell to the "hardcore" (like many here, I hate this term, because it basically means teenage boys) playerbase, which buys more as a group than any other group, so sales of games like Gears of War and Halo and whatnot are higher than anything on the Wii other than 1st party Nintendo titles (and N actually puts out 1st party quality products).
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
I agree with all of this but I want to reinforce the notion that none of the companies are trying to exclude any of the markets. They have their focuses, but Nintendo tries to get us the occasional "core" game (metroid, fire emblem, batt wars, etc) or alternatively game that appeals to both core and casual (smash brawl, mario galaxy, zelda, etc), MS tries to pull out some casual games (viva pinata, lips, etc), and Sony tries to draw in casual gamers all the time (LBP, home, etc).
They all want to appeal to all segments of the market. But they can't easily control the major market mindshare once it sets in. And it's pretty much set in stone now.
There are exceptions of course; there will be a chunk of hardcore gamers with Wiis (or even dare I say only a wii) as there will be casual gamers with nothing but a 360 or nothing but a PS3. But overall, Nintendo/MS/Sony each systems' have respective market images right now and that's a practically impossible thing to change at large.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
I meant a few things by "all in".
The first being marketing, since the vast majority of the marketing Nintendo has been doing for the Wii and recently with the DS has been to the "casual gamer" or even to a non-gaming demographic. Other than the advertising blitz behind the new Animal Crossing game, it seems like they've dialed the marketing for their pre-Wii (whee!) franchises way back, basically letting Mario and Smash Brothers sell themselves.
The second is that on a hardware level, they have limited what they can do to appeal to gamers who are looking for more complex games, or shinier graphics, or more online-focused games.
It also seems to me that the push to bring more "mature" games (assuming that's what you mean by "core-centric", as opposed the fan service franchise games) or at least more diverse games to the Wii has come from third-party publishers more so than from Nintendo.
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
And you know, Windows 95, which effectively killed the Mac as a gaming platforming.
The other two sell to the "hardcore" (like many here, I hate this term, because it basically means teenage boys) playerbase, which buys more as a group than any other group, so sales of games like Gears of War and Halo and whatnot are higher than anything on the Wii other than 1st party Nintendo titles (and N actually puts out 1st party quality products).
This is the market mindshare I'm talking about. MS has tried to re image its Xbox Arcade as a system for everyone/casual gamers, and Sony constantly tries to bring up new games as "the next big thing" for casual gaming, including stuff like LBP, Home, Singstar, Ratchet, etc.
But it's set in and even though they're trying to tell us, each of them, that "We have games for you," or "We're the system for you," the market has already decided what system is "for them."
And banging the drum to try and bring in more of the other market, from each company, is admirable. But it's not going to change things in the large sense.
Also, in regards to your last sentence, it's true that not many 3rd party wii games will compete with Gears of War or Halo, but.. These two games were funded and published by Microsoft, the first party for the 360.
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Apparently you weren't around when Microsoft announced the Xbox.
The "lol Microsoft" was louder than every known sound in the universe save the Big Bang. At least until it actually came out and did decently.
Edit: By "it" I mean the Xbox. Though I suppose the Big Bang was a relative success too.
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?
Um, I'd like you to explain how that answers my question please champ?
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.
The only person the casual market is bad for is gamers.
Also, in regards to your last sentence, it's true that not many 3rd party wii games will compete with Gears of War or Halo, but.. These two games were funded and published by Microsoft, the first party for the 360.
You're right, those were just the first two that came to mind. Substitute in some big name Ubisoft or whatnot games like Assassins Creed or something like Fallout 3 for true third party examples.
They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Wii is way overpriced if you consider the cost of the components (although obviously, not overpriced when you consider customer demand). The system can't have cost that much more than the Gamecube to begin with (a system that was selling for around $100 at the time) and wasn't there a report a few months ago that estimated that Wii production costs had dropped by quite a bit since launch? They could probably drop the price of the Wii to $100 now if they really wanted to.
And that nicely illustrates the biggest difference between Nintendo & other console companies. Nintendo is purely focused on gaming so immediate profit is #1. Microsoft & Sony have many divisions and so immediate profit is not always as important as improving their brand in general. I wonder how many computers & TVs sold back in the day based on the name recognition that they got from the Playstation's success.
EDIT: I wouldn't say that Nintendo is better at running a business; they're just focused on a single thing.
If memory serves, when the Wii launched iSuppli estimated each one cost just $170 to make. By contrast, every PS3 made cost $800-$900. So yes, Nintendo can push the price button at any time, though financially speaking they'd be fools to do so now. And it also shows how badly Sony contains costs.
It can be hard to compare Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft as a whole since those two are absolutely ginormous, while Nintendo is merely huge. But for a company of its size, Nintendo is doing aces at the moment.
Yeah, but the whole Yen issue has thrown a wrench into their costs. From their perspective the West has already had a price cut.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Apparently you weren't around when Microsoft announced the Xbox.
The "lol Microsoft" was louder than every known sound in the universe save the Big Bang. At least until it actually came out and did decently.
Edit: By "it" I mean the Xbox. Though I suppose the Big Bang was a relative success too.
No.
I was around. And I wasn't surprised. Because rumors of MS trying to buy out SEGA and Nintendo had existed for a year or two before the Xbox was announced. It was a logical conclusion.
Being a PC gamer in my youth, I thought it was a pretty good idea.
Most people that weren't nutsacks thought it would be a decent competitor. Sadly, nutsacks compose a drastic portion of the market.
Also, in regards to your last sentence, it's true that not many 3rd party wii games will compete with Gears of War or Halo, but.. These two games were funded and published by Microsoft, the first party for the 360.
You're right, those were just the first two that came to mind. Substitute in some big name Ubisoft or whatnot games like Assassins Creed or something like Fallout 3 for true third party examples.
Indeed. And it costs that level of budget and accompanying risk.
Going from Gamecube to Wii is "all in." Going from Xbox to re-market-imaging and bundling Xbox is not going "all in," even though it's an admirable and expensive effort.
I would agree with this. Arguably MS and Sony shouldn't be going "all in" anyway, since that presumes abandoning the hardcore audiences they've established. (I guess it depends on what you mean by "all in"). While it's certainly smaller than the casual userbase the Wii has obtained, it's certainly not trivial. A good business can, and is, being made off that market.
But yes, MS is obviously making some plays in "going casual". We've already seen this already. We can see Nintendo trying to do the opposite as well, with more "core-centric" games appearing on their platforms.
I meant a few things by "all in".
The first being marketing, since the vast majority of the marketing Nintendo has been doing for the Wii and recently with the DS has been to the "casual gamer" or even to a non-gaming demographic. Other than the advertising blitz behind the new Animal Crossing game, it seems like they've dialed the marketing for their pre-Wii (whee!) franchises way back, basically letting Mario and Smash Brothers sell themselves.
The second is that on a hardware level, they have limited what they can do to appeal to gamers who are looking for more complex games, or shinier graphics, or more online-focused games.
It also seems to me that the push to bring more "mature" games (assuming that's what you mean by "core-centric", as opposed the fan service franchise games) or at least more diverse games to the Wii has come from third-party publishers more so than from Nintendo.
Ahh thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree that on all those fronts, MS certainly hasn't gone "all-in". Nor have third parties gone "all in" on making casual-type games for the 360 or PS3. I don't think it would be a good idea either. There are still plenty of core titles that do very well on those systems, so naturally you will continue to see that happen.
But increasing marketing, focus, etc. on casual and more diverse audiences doesn't have to be an "all-in" or mutually exclusive action. You will continue to see MS and Sony attempt more headway down the mainstream/casual path, the same way that Nintendo is attempting to do the same in the other direction ... all while maintaining their current, respective strengths.
Xbox 1 was basically "Halo: the Console", but I don't remember thinking it that strange that MS would release it. They had been active in the PC game market for a while, in addition to making Windows a game friendly OS.
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?
Um, I'd like you to explain how that answers my question please champ?
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
They're also pulling in more profit from the Wii than the PS2 did at its peak, since Sony isn't nearly as good at controlling costs.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Wii is way overpriced if you consider the cost of the components (although obviously, not overpriced when you consider customer demand). The system can't have cost that much more than the Gamecube to begin with (a system that was selling for around $100 at the time) and wasn't there a report a few months ago that estimated that Wii production costs had dropped by quite a bit since launch? They could probably drop the price of the Wii to $100 now if they really wanted to.
And that nicely illustrates the biggest difference between Nintendo & other console companies. Nintendo is purely focused on gaming so immediate profit is #1. Microsoft & Sony have many divisions and so immediate profit is not always as important as improving their brand in general. I wonder how many computers & TVs sold back in the day based on the name recognition that they got from the Playstation's success.
EDIT: I wouldn't say that Nintendo is better at running a business; they're just focused on a single thing.
If memory serves, when the Wii launched iSuppli estimated each one cost just $170 to make. By contrast, every PS3 made cost $800-$900. So yes, Nintendo can push the price button at any time, though financially speaking they'd be fools to do so now. And it also shows how badly Sony contains costs.
It can be hard to compare Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft as a whole since those two are absolutely ginormous, while Nintendo is merely huge. But for a company of its size, Nintendo is doing aces at the moment.
Yeah, but the whole Yen issue has thrown a wrench into their costs. From their perspective the West has already had a price cut.
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
No shit, however, that wasn't my question. I was wondering it did better in places with high obesity rates. Or if it did approximately as well in each area. Sorry you weren't able to parse that.
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
No shit, however, that wasn't my question. I was wondering it did better in places with high obesity rates. Or if it did approximately as well in each area. Sorry you weren't able to parse that.
According to VGChartz
JPN US
Wii Units 3,370,000 7,660,000
Wii Fit 8,200,000 22,830,000
Overlap 41% 33%
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
No shit, however, that wasn't my question. I was wondering it did better in places with high obesity rates. Or if it did approximately as well in each area. Sorry you weren't able to parse that.
Well you don't have much data and no way of controlling for other factors so I doubt there is any way to get a meaningful answer beyond noting that lack of rampant obesity is no bar to rampant Wii Fit sales.
What would you even look at sales per capita, Wii Fit's attach rate, sales compared to PS3 sales? If you want a serious answer you're question should be well posed.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Don't forget the Close Combat games, Combat Flight Simulator, every one of those Microsoft -Sport games (Golf, etc.,) that came out in the 1990s, and so forth. Microsoft was practically a juggernaut in entertainment software back when companies like EA and Activision were still called (and certainly back when it was just 'Electronic Arts').
I always imagined this was the reason they decided to get back into the Xbox in the first place--something like a third to half of the most popular games of the time were either developed or distributed by them, and they all ran on Microsoft's platform. They had the expertise. Plus, they were promising to actually organize console gaming online. Not sure if they would come through on that, but they did. The XNA development trend is still a surprise though.
Apparently, not many people felt the same way, because the cry 'Xbox Lol' WAS louder than the original Big Bang. I picked up one anyway, and a few years later, it outsold a console by a company that had....what? 20 years experience with this?
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.
The only person the casual market is bad for is gamers.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Gamers don't like casual games? "Games for gamers" aren't being made because of the casual market? I'm kinda lost here.
chrono_traveller on
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
I don't think I've played a single Microsoft published PC game with the exception of Minesweeper & I've been gaming since the 80s. I wonder if they were as popular as people think or if it was more of a niche thing.
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Don't forget the Close Combat games, Combat Flight Simulator, every one of those Microsoft -Sport games (Golf, etc.,) that came out in the 1990s, and so forth. Microsoft was practically a juggernaut in entertainment software back when companies like EA and Activision were still called (and certainly back when it was just 'Electronic Arts').
I always imagined this was the reason they decided to get back into the Xbox in the first place--something like a third to half of the most popular games of the time were either developed or distributed by them, and they all ran on Microsoft's platform. They had the expertise. Plus, they were promising to actually organize console gaming online. Not sure if they would come through on that, but they did. The XNA development trend is still a surprise though.
Apparently, not many people felt the same way, because the cry 'Xbox Lol' WAS louder than the original Big Bang. I picked up one anyway, and a few years later, it outsold a console by a company that had....what? 20 years experience with this?
It wasn't just 'lol MS'. It was also ranting against the potential that this was MS's move to dominate yet another market by throwing good money after bad. The Xbox was seen as the supposed ultimate Set Top device for the future of household entertainment.
I don't think I've played a single Microsoft published PC game with the exception of Minesweeper & I've been gaming since the 80s. I wonder if they were as popular as people think or if it was more of a niche thing.
People are overstating MS's influence on the PC gaming industry, but Age of Empires was a huge hit, and all of MS's Flight Sims and Sports games were moderate hits.
I don't think I've played a single Microsoft published PC game with the exception of Minesweeper & I've been gaming since the 80s. I wonder if they were as popular as people think or if it was more of a niche thing.
People are overstating MS's influence on the PC gaming industry, but Age of Empires was a huge hit, and all of MS's Flight Sims and Sports games were moderate hits.
Also, you know, Windows itself.
Also Direct X. They managed to beat out Glide and OpenGL.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
No shit, however, that wasn't my question. I was wondering it did better in places with high obesity rates. Or if it did approximately as well in each area. Sorry you weren't able to parse that.
Well you don't have much data and no way of controlling for other factors so I doubt there is any way to get a meaningful answer beyond noting that lack of rampant obesity is no bar to rampant Wii Fit sales.
What would you even look at sales per capita, Wii Fit's attach rate, sales compared to PS3 sales? If you want a serious answer you're question should be well posed.
It wasn't just 'lol MS'. It was also ranting against the potential that this was MS's move to dominate yet another market by throwing good money after bad. The Xbox was seen as the supposed ultimate Set Top device for the future of household entertainment.
People feared this.
Haha, I had forgotten about that. Though at the time, Microsoft was still making relatively dickheaded moves at being a malevolent monopoly and destroying all potential competitors, so that actually made a tiny bit of sense.
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.
The only person the casual market is bad for is gamers.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Gamers don't like casual games? "Games for gamers" aren't being made because of the casual market? I'm kinda lost here.
Do you want major publishers to eschew "typical" or "traditional" game design to focus more on the "casual" market? Meaning, less RPGs, less FPS', less Strategy games, and more Imagine Babys, Cooking Mama, and Petz Horses?
I don't.
Do you want the console manufacturers to feel like they have to shoehorn gimmicky control schemes into their console?
I don't.
It's happening. Not in large strides, but it's slowly starting to get big attention. Restructuring and streamlining is fine. Completely eschewing your demographic in favor of another is certainly fine from a business standpoint but it certainly sucks for the consumer who buys your products.
Happened to Fender back in the day. CBS bought them in 1965 and thought that the low end, student and hobbyist market was where the money was at, and their instrument and equipment quality drastically took a dip. Sadly, unlike the gaming market, CBS' new found market wasn't enough to really sustain the company like it expected.
I don't think I've played a single Microsoft published PC game with the exception of Minesweeper & I've been gaming since the 80s. I wonder if they were as popular as people think or if it was more of a niche thing.
People are overstating MS's influence on the PC gaming industry, but Age of Empires was a huge hit, and all of MS's Flight Sims and Sports games were moderate hits.
Also, you know, Windows itself.
Also Direct X. They managed to beat out Glide and OpenGL.
Yeah, that ties into the whole Windows 95 thing. Before Windows 95 came around, Mac could put out far superior graphics, and had a large number of exclusive games. Windows 95 came around and became the sole platform for PC games, which windows has been since, aside from a few games which get ports (mostly Blizzard games).
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Don't forget the Close Combat games, Combat Flight Simulator, every one of those Microsoft -Sport games (Golf, etc.,) that came out in the 1990s, and so forth. Microsoft was practically a juggernaut in entertainment software back when companies like EA and Activision were still called (and certainly back when it was just 'Electronic Arts').
I always imagined this was the reason they decided to get back into the Xbox in the first place--something like a third to half of the most popular games of the time were either developed or distributed by them, and they all ran on Microsoft's platform. They had the expertise. Plus, they were promising to actually organize console gaming online. Not sure if they would come through on that, but they did. The XNA development trend is still a surprise though.
Apparently, not many people felt the same way, because the cry 'Xbox Lol' WAS louder than the original Big Bang. I picked up one anyway, and a few years later, it outsold a console by a company that had....what? 20 years experience with this?
It wasn't just 'lol MS'. It was also ranting against the potential that this was MS's move to dominate yet another market by throwing good money after bad. The Xbox was seen as the supposed ultimate Set Top device for the future of household entertainment.
People feared this.
People also feared the Millennium Bug. Except this was even a bigger contradiction/case of cognitive dissonance. "Oh My God! Microsoft is going to dominate video gaming completely and absolutely own our living room! Good thing that the Xbox will be dead within 3 months." o_O
I don't think I've played a single Microsoft published PC game with the exception of Minesweeper & I've been gaming since the 80s. I wonder if they were as popular as people think or if it was more of a niche thing.
People are overstating MS's influence on the PC gaming industry, but Age of Empires was a huge hit, and all of MS's Flight Sims and Sports games were moderate hits.
Also, you know, Windows itself.
With absolutely no intention of sounding like a dick, I honestly think a lot of people underestimate the number of games that were distributed, of not developed by the company. Brand recognition was not so fiercely promoted back then--at least how I remember it. You could play a game for years and not realize who it was distributed by, or even created by. I didn't know half the companies that distributed FASA's MechWarrior series until I looked them up after MW4.
Well, that, those games all came out on Windows OS. And nearly all of them ran either exclusively or with DirectX.
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.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
Don't forget the Close Combat games, Combat Flight Simulator, every one of those Microsoft -Sport games (Golf, etc.,) that came out in the 1990s, and so forth. Microsoft was practically a juggernaut in entertainment software back when companies like EA and Activision were still called (and certainly back when it was just 'Electronic Arts').
I always imagined this was the reason they decided to get back into the Xbox in the first place--something like a third to half of the most popular games of the time were either developed or distributed by them, and they all ran on Microsoft's platform. They had the expertise. Plus, they were promising to actually organize console gaming online. Not sure if they would come through on that, but they did. The XNA development trend is still a surprise though.
Apparently, not many people felt the same way, because the cry 'Xbox Lol' WAS louder than the original Big Bang. I picked up one anyway, and a few years later, it outsold a console by a company that had....what? 20 years experience with this?
It wasn't just 'lol MS'. It was also ranting against the potential that this was MS's move to dominate yet another market by throwing good money after bad. The Xbox was seen as the supposed ultimate Set Top device for the future of household entertainment.
People feared this.
Dunno why.
That was Sony's plan as well. Sony's always been a bigger back of dicks than MS.
Also Direct X. They managed to beat out Glide and OpenGL.
I avoided mentioning DirectX because, for a while there, it really did suck. So did Glide.
But still...
Haha, I had forgotten about that. Though at the time, Microsoft was still making relatively dickheaded moves at being a malevolent monopoly and destroying all potential competitors, so that actually made a tiny bit of sense.
Eh.
I think that was just a collective kneejerk of a reaction. They were in a position to abuse, and they didn't. Proprietary parts/software exists just fine in other markets. I dunno why suddenly the PC market gets the rules changed. No one forced billions of people to buy Windows or IBM compatible PCs. Secondly, Apple had a much larger monopoly over the Macintosh platform than MS ever had on the PC.
Where as MS got into shit for including their own software within their own software, Apple pretty much got the final say so on hardware and software.
Posts
When you look at actual game sales, most Wii games aren't up at the top, its mostly Xbox/ps3/crossplatform stuff.
Nintendo is simply better at running a business than the other two, and also is an exclusively video game based business, unlike the other two.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Wii is way overpriced if you consider the cost of the components (although obviously, not overpriced when you consider customer demand). The system can't have cost that much more than the Gamecube to begin with (a system that was selling for around $100 at the time) and wasn't there a report a few months ago that estimated that Wii production costs had dropped by quite a bit since launch? They could probably drop the price of the Wii to $100 now if they really wanted to.
And that nicely illustrates the biggest difference between Nintendo & other console companies. Nintendo is purely focused on gaming so immediate profit is #1. Microsoft & Sony have many divisions and so immediate profit is not always as important as improving their brand in general. I wonder how many computers & TVs sold back in the day based on the name recognition that they got from the Playstation's success.
EDIT: I wouldn't say that Nintendo is better at running a business; they're just focused on a single thing.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Still Wii has sold most software (330 million units) this generation.
well the wii definitely sells more software overall...which kind of supports what you're saying :P
If memory serves, when the Wii launched iSuppli estimated each one cost just $170 to make. By contrast, every PS3 made cost $800-$900. So yes, Nintendo can push the price drop button at any time, though financially speaking they'd be fools to do so now. And it also shows how badly Sony contains costs.
It can be hard to compare Nintendo with Sony and Microsoft as a whole since those two are absolutely ginormous, while Nintendo is merely huge. But for a company of its size, Nintendo is doing aces at the moment.
Exactly. The Wii's business model is to sell to literally everyone. Therefore it will have the most overall console sales and games sales.
The other two sell to the "hardcore" (like many here, I hate this term, because it basically means teenage boys) playerbase, which buys more as a group than any other group, so sales of games like Gears of War and Halo and whatnot are higher than anything on the Wii other than 1st party Nintendo titles (and N actually puts out 1st party quality products).
I agree with all of this but I want to reinforce the notion that none of the companies are trying to exclude any of the markets. They have their focuses, but Nintendo tries to get us the occasional "core" game (metroid, fire emblem, batt wars, etc) or alternatively game that appeals to both core and casual (smash brawl, mario galaxy, zelda, etc), MS tries to pull out some casual games (viva pinata, lips, etc), and Sony tries to draw in casual gamers all the time (LBP, home, etc).
They all want to appeal to all segments of the market. But they can't easily control the major market mindshare once it sets in. And it's pretty much set in stone now.
There are exceptions of course; there will be a chunk of hardcore gamers with Wiis (or even dare I say only a wii) as there will be casual gamers with nothing but a 360 or nothing but a PS3. But overall, Nintendo/MS/Sony each systems' have respective market images right now and that's a practically impossible thing to change at large.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I meant a few things by "all in".
The first being marketing, since the vast majority of the marketing Nintendo has been doing for the Wii and recently with the DS has been to the "casual gamer" or even to a non-gaming demographic. Other than the advertising blitz behind the new Animal Crossing game, it seems like they've dialed the marketing for their pre-Wii (whee!) franchises way back, basically letting Mario and Smash Brothers sell themselves.
The second is that on a hardware level, they have limited what they can do to appeal to gamers who are looking for more complex games, or shinier graphics, or more online-focused games.
It also seems to me that the push to bring more "mature" games (assuming that's what you mean by "core-centric", as opposed the fan service franchise games) or at least more diverse games to the Wii has come from third-party publishers more so than from Nintendo.
Microsoft was a laughing stock in the games biz?
Damn. And here I was sittin here thinking that Mechwarrior, Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, Zoo Tycoon, Motorcross Madness, Midtown Madness, Freelancer, and Starlancer weren't good games that sold a whole bunch.
Silly me.
And you know, Windows 95, which effectively killed the Mac as a gaming platforming.
This is the market mindshare I'm talking about. MS has tried to re image its Xbox Arcade as a system for everyone/casual gamers, and Sony constantly tries to bring up new games as "the next big thing" for casual gaming, including stuff like LBP, Home, Singstar, Ratchet, etc.
But it's set in and even though they're trying to tell us, each of them, that "We have games for you," or "We're the system for you," the market has already decided what system is "for them."
And banging the drum to try and bring in more of the other market, from each company, is admirable. But it's not going to change things in the large sense.
Also, in regards to your last sentence, it's true that not many 3rd party wii games will compete with Gears of War or Halo, but.. These two games were funded and published by Microsoft, the first party for the 360.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Apparently you weren't around when Microsoft announced the Xbox.
The "lol Microsoft" was louder than every known sound in the universe save the Big Bang. At least until it actually came out and did decently.
Edit: By "it" I mean the Xbox. Though I suppose the Big Bang was a relative success too.
Um, I'd like you to explain how that answers my question please champ?
The only person the casual market is bad for is gamers.
You're right, those were just the first two that came to mind. Substitute in some big name Ubisoft or whatnot games like Assassins Creed or something like Fallout 3 for true third party examples.
Yeah, but the whole Yen issue has thrown a wrench into their costs. From their perspective the West has already had a price cut.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
No.
I was around. And I wasn't surprised. Because rumors of MS trying to buy out SEGA and Nintendo had existed for a year or two before the Xbox was announced. It was a logical conclusion.
Being a PC gamer in my youth, I thought it was a pretty good idea.
Most people that weren't nutsacks thought it would be a decent competitor. Sadly, nutsacks compose a drastic portion of the market.
Indeed. And it costs that level of budget and accompanying risk.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Ahh thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree that on all those fronts, MS certainly hasn't gone "all-in". Nor have third parties gone "all in" on making casual-type games for the 360 or PS3. I don't think it would be a good idea either. There are still plenty of core titles that do very well on those systems, so naturally you will continue to see that happen.
But increasing marketing, focus, etc. on casual and more diverse audiences doesn't have to be an "all-in" or mutually exclusive action. You will continue to see MS and Sony attempt more headway down the mainstream/casual path, the same way that Nintendo is attempting to do the same in the other direction ... all while maintaining their current, respective strengths.
- 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
Sorry didn't know you had a learning disability. I'll spell it out for you.
Wii Fit sells well everywhere therefore it sell well in places where obesity rates are high and it sells well in places where obesity rates are low.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Didn't they up the price in Europe?
I think just in the UK since the pound is so weak.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
No shit, however, that wasn't my question. I was wondering it did better in places with high obesity rates. Or if it did approximately as well in each area. Sorry you weren't able to parse that.
According to VGChartz
Well you don't have much data and no way of controlling for other factors so I doubt there is any way to get a meaningful answer beyond noting that lack of rampant obesity is no bar to rampant Wii Fit sales.
What would you even look at sales per capita, Wii Fit's attach rate, sales compared to PS3 sales? If you want a serious answer you're question should be well posed.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Don't forget the Close Combat games, Combat Flight Simulator, every one of those Microsoft -Sport games (Golf, etc.,) that came out in the 1990s, and so forth. Microsoft was practically a juggernaut in entertainment software back when companies like EA and Activision were still called (and certainly back when it was just 'Electronic Arts').
I always imagined this was the reason they decided to get back into the Xbox in the first place--something like a third to half of the most popular games of the time were either developed or distributed by them, and they all ran on Microsoft's platform. They had the expertise. Plus, they were promising to actually organize console gaming online. Not sure if they would come through on that, but they did. The XNA development trend is still a surprise though.
Apparently, not many people felt the same way, because the cry 'Xbox Lol' WAS louder than the original Big Bang. I picked up one anyway, and a few years later, it outsold a console by a company that had....what? 20 years experience with this?
I don't understand what you mean by this. Gamers don't like casual games? "Games for gamers" aren't being made because of the casual market? I'm kinda lost here.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
It wasn't just 'lol MS'. It was also ranting against the potential that this was MS's move to dominate yet another market by throwing good money after bad. The Xbox was seen as the supposed ultimate Set Top device for the future of household entertainment.
People feared this.
People are overstating MS's influence on the PC gaming industry, but Age of Empires was a huge hit, and all of MS's Flight Sims and Sports games were moderate hits.
Also, you know, Windows itself.
Also Direct X. They managed to beat out Glide and OpenGL.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
You could just say "we don't know".
There's that.
Haha, I had forgotten about that. Though at the time, Microsoft was still making relatively dickheaded moves at being a malevolent monopoly and destroying all potential competitors, so that actually made a tiny bit of sense.
Do you want major publishers to eschew "typical" or "traditional" game design to focus more on the "casual" market? Meaning, less RPGs, less FPS', less Strategy games, and more Imagine Babys, Cooking Mama, and Petz Horses?
I don't.
Do you want the console manufacturers to feel like they have to shoehorn gimmicky control schemes into their console?
I don't.
It's happening. Not in large strides, but it's slowly starting to get big attention. Restructuring and streamlining is fine. Completely eschewing your demographic in favor of another is certainly fine from a business standpoint but it certainly sucks for the consumer who buys your products.
Happened to Fender back in the day. CBS bought them in 1965 and thought that the low end, student and hobbyist market was where the money was at, and their instrument and equipment quality drastically took a dip. Sadly, unlike the gaming market, CBS' new found market wasn't enough to really sustain the company like it expected.
Yeah, that ties into the whole Windows 95 thing. Before Windows 95 came around, Mac could put out far superior graphics, and had a large number of exclusive games. Windows 95 came around and became the sole platform for PC games, which windows has been since, aside from a few games which get ports (mostly Blizzard games).
People also feared the Millennium Bug. Except this was even a bigger contradiction/case of cognitive dissonance. "Oh My God! Microsoft is going to dominate video gaming completely and absolutely own our living room! Good thing that the Xbox will be dead within 3 months." o_O
With absolutely no intention of sounding like a dick, I honestly think a lot of people underestimate the number of games that were distributed, of not developed by the company. Brand recognition was not so fiercely promoted back then--at least how I remember it. You could play a game for years and not realize who it was distributed by, or even created by. I didn't know half the companies that distributed FASA's MechWarrior series until I looked them up after MW4.
Well, that, those games all came out on Windows OS. And nearly all of them ran either exclusively or with DirectX.
Dunno why.
That was Sony's plan as well. Sony's always been a bigger back of dicks than MS.
I avoided mentioning DirectX because, for a while there, it really did suck. So did Glide.
But still...
Eh.
I think that was just a collective kneejerk of a reaction. They were in a position to abuse, and they didn't. Proprietary parts/software exists just fine in other markets. I dunno why suddenly the PC market gets the rules changed. No one forced billions of people to buy Windows or IBM compatible PCs. Secondly, Apple had a much larger monopoly over the Macintosh platform than MS ever had on the PC.
Where as MS got into shit for including their own software within their own software, Apple pretty much got the final say so on hardware and software.
The Macintosh platform is Apple. :x
I don't really think thats the same sort of comparison.