Slashdot Mirror
DVD-Enabled Consoles Do Better?
Thanks to GameMarketWatch.com for their article discussing a survey linking console DVD use and game purchases. Some manufacturers don't see the point of a bundled DVD player: "'Why would we ever include DVD playback in our videogame system?' was the question posed in a recent Business 2.0 article by George Harrison, Nintendo's VP of Marketing. 'If someone buys a DVD and watches it on the Nintendo GameCube, we wouldn't receive any revenue from that. We'd rather have them play our games.'" But the survey shows a possible advantage to DVD playback for hardware manufacturers: "The Centris poll results... suggest that DVD capability has the potential to drive game software activity, since respondents that used their game consoles to watch DVD movies were also the heaviest purchasers and renters of games."
I have a PS2 and GameCube. I have used the PS2 as a secondary DVD player but have had to put it into a hifi cabinet to stop the noise of the fan being a constant irritation. While it has played all the DVDs I have wanted to and is also region free thanks to region X I don't think I could stand it as the only DVD player we had. The remote is terrible and the noise irritating. Picture is OK on a small screen (28" widescreen) but I wouldn't use it for films on my projection system.
To be honest, I'm with Nintendo on this, the GameCube is smaller, quieter and starts games quicker so as a games machine it is better than the PS2 as it sticks to what it does best. Sadly, the games are released too late so we tend to get the PS2 version when they appear. If the PS2 and GC versions arrived at the same time I would buy the GC version in a heartbeat. Sadly this delay rather than lack of DVD support is what we mean the GC will be runner up to the PS2. Xbox is even further behind despite being able to play DVDs of course.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
As for anti-nintendo articles well cry me a river. This article made an observation and one that is not entirely unvalid.
Do people really buy a console based on if it can play dvd's or indeed do anything except play games? Hard to say but the fact that Nintendo left it out while everyone else included it says something. It tells you that nintendo likes to go its own way, like sticking to cartridges when CD's are so much cheaper to produce. Like censorship in games when the other allow any type of game.
Do these strategys work? Well not according to sales figures. You can compare it all you like to the X-box but the fact is that X-box is a loser as well. The one to beat is the PS2 and that one is miles ahead.
The one area they do well is in the handheld area. Now sony is moving in on this as well. A lot of people seem to think sony will botch this up. After all it is unthinkable that sony can beat nintendo on doing a game console :)
The profits nintendo shows are indeed not bad. But a substantial part of this is the handheld area, if they face the same kind of competiotion as they faced with the PS1 and PS2 then they are done for. They may hold out a long time but have we ever seen a game company come back from a lost war?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sony did it right, they shipped a DVD player with the PS2. It was really quite smart because at the time DVD players were still expensive and the cheapest ones were complete crap.
Most US kids who get a Playstation from Mom & Dad already have their own TV in their room, at the time they didn't have a DVD player. (maybe a VCR but no DVD). So the ability to rent one's own movies and view them in one's bedroom along with games was what helped sell the PS2!
The real buyers of the PS2 were the 18-30 somethings who could afford the expense of the PS2. This crowd already had DVD because they had jobs that paid real money! But they only had ONE DVD player on the main TV in the house. The 20-30 portion of this crowd may actually be married and have children. This means they don't have time to play games that often and they may just fight with the wife over watching Lifetime channel shows. So they retreat to another TV with their PS2 and play games as well as watching guy movies the wife won't watch.
Nintendo blew it! First they targeted the younger crowd and second, they neglected to put a DVD player in their inexpensive console. Do you have any idea how many Disney movies on DVD the average kid has?!?! It's incredible, I think my sister's 5 year old has just about every damn movie and she's watched them 8 million times! Parent's simply don't want to watch them again and again! Had Nintendo simply included a DVD player the parents would have freaking loved it! Just get the kid a small cheap TV and let the kid play in their room the next time you rent an adult movie! They can play games and/or watch their movies.
It's too late now for DVD to make a difference in anyone's buying decision until games start getting shipped on DVD and using the added space. DVD players are very very inexpensive, you can get one at Walmart for under $50! So that's why Ninetendo blew it! They also didn't ship fast enough nor could they compete with Sony or Microsoft on the hardware. They missed the Window!
From the looks of it, it appears that most people think that Nintendo flat out ignored the push to make a console that doubled as a home entertainment system. Has anyone considered that Nintendo may have made a concious decision, after weighing the pros and cons, to keep the GameCube purely a game console?
Isn't it concievable that Nintendo weighed the cheaper/easier-to-make pros versus the lose-market-share cons and simply decided to leave the entertainment system out of the console?
Was this really the worst business decision they could make? With Sony holding a good bit of the market share and Microsoft coming out with a new game console, perhaps Nintendo simply thought they could not afford to make a console that sold at a loss?