Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Claims No.2 Spot, PS2 Sales Down Year-On-Year
jkcity writes "In an interview with Nintendo's Perrin Kaplan on IGN Cube, she claims: 'We basically won 2003 [in the U.S.] and moved ourselves to the number two spot, and Microsoft's Xbox to number three', also noting: 'Year-on-year we were up 68.5% [in December] based on units sold. We sold about 1.1 million GameCubes in December... For the whole year we were up 35%. Our competitors were both in the negative.' But an analyst quoted in an [overly harsh?] BBC News story is less impressed, suggesting the console 'did not do as well as I would have expected'." Elsewhere, a Reuters story notes that PlayStation 2 sales in the U.S. "fell 27 percent to 2.94 million units in November and December from four million units a year earlier", but the console still seems to be outselling the GameCube's increased Xmas volume.
With the huge market of PS2 owners this Christmas [who have had their consoles for awhile], a $100 second console was very attractive, I assume. Furthermore, the Gamecube seems to compliment the PS2 better than the XBox compliments the PS2 - meaning that there seems to be a lot of games for the Gamecube that can't be found on the PS2 whereas most of the games of the XBox can be found on the PS2 in some form or another. When looking to add a second console to my entertainment setup, I look for unique play experiences, not just better graphics.
There was a marketing campaign couple of years ago in Poland. One of three GSM operators finally received licence for 900MHz (previosly they only had 1800, so they covered only major cities) and put major buzz into their slogan ``fastest growing coverage''.
;)
;)
Lots of people had fun about marketing a shortcoming as an advantage. I mean, the other two operators had 99.x% coverage, so their coverage grew by 0.03% annually, and the newcommer had sth like 40% annual rate
So, if your market grows from one unit to ten units you can make a lot of buzz about 1000% annual rate
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Try researching your comments before you make them. Nintendo is losing money on each GameCube sold, but it is a very very thin margin. Here is a quote from an interview at igncube.com
IGNcube: Okay. Now GameCube is selling for $99 and it's doing great. But is Nintendo losing money on each unit sold?
Perrin: I would say that our losses are really negligible. It's such a small amount. Plus with the amount of software that's being sold we're still definitely in a solid profit situation. We're not in the position that I know that Microsoft has been in with the loss Xbox hardware.
Anyways, they make so much money on their GBA (its selling at the same price as the GameCube, even tho it is old hardware), that it makes up for any losses they take on GameCube hardware (and then some!) Nintendo is doing pretty good, regardless of how the media spins it.
first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't.
Exactly. Most investors talk about diversifying their investments, so why should a company be any different? At least Nintendo has some similarity in their markets so that they can learn from one category and use that knowledge in another, not to mention product leveraging like GBA-GC connectivity. Additionally, the BBC story was very light on actual facts and numbers. They didn't talk about Nintendo's sales, or even discuss their handheld position in the least. Maybe the GC is in a significantly worse position in the UK, but there aren't any numbers on the page to prove their points.
I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with.
The problem is finding a way to deal with that image. They've been working on this problem since it first came up in the 16-bit console wars with Sega. So far they've had very limited success, at best.
The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.
My only comment on this is that most of the GC titles I've purchased have been in the $20-25 range, although some of them were used titles. I can find a lot more PS2 titles in that price range, but then there are a lot more PS2 titles in general, and I can't necessarily find titles I want, for any console, in that range now that I have a similar number of titles for each system. At worst, I'd say that Nintendo's top-tier 1st party titles stay at the $50 price longer than most PS2 titles, but I can't say the same in comparison with the XBox, where Halo sat at $50 for 2 years.
Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage.
The Dreamcast had a year's head start on the PS2, and in many ways had titles that showed off the hardware better at launch, but it didn't help them against Sony. The PS2 wasn't even widely available for 6 months after it's US launch, and it still pulled ahead mostly on the strength of Sony's marketing and the PS1's titles and reputation.
Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).
It's due to Sony's reputation among developers for allowing a lot of freedom in content (even if it's no longer true that they have any more freedom there than anywhere else), plus the head start, and their dominance in the previous console generation. Currently, there are more multi-platform releases than exclusives for any of the consoles, at least as far as I've been able to tell, which is probably the reason for Sony's recent whining about the quality of multi-platform titles on their console (and it's generally accepted that a good multi-platform title isn't going to look as good on a PS2, which may be an image problem for Sony's entry for the next console generation).
I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have exper
-PainKilleR-[CE]
the idea that Nintendo will leave the hardware business comes from the common belief that if trends continue the way they're going, Nintendo will decide the money spent developing and marketing a console just isn't worth it. Not when they could theoretically sell their fantastic 1st party games to both leading console vendors and more than triple their potential market.
analysts look at the potential profits of a cross-platform Sunshine, Kart, Metroid or Wind Waker -- and note that the profit margin for Nintendo would be much much higher.
it isn't actually based on whether Nintendo can reverse the trends - it's all just armchair-commentary on what looks like a sure thing on paper.
As for the next console generation, it will definitely be based around the tried-and-true 'bigger better faster more'. More polygons, more color depth, more memory, and more storage.
On top of that, they're most likely going to roll in more online capabilities, more network integration capabilities, and quite possibly PVR capability.
You can get a gist of what MS has planned by taking a preview of the feature list for DirectX Next.
There's at least another generation (after the upcoming) or two of simply upselling graphics. Perhaps someone will go for an even bigger optical disc (like blu-ray or some such) next generation, but that's not likely.
VR will be a pipe-dream alongside flying cars for a long time yet.
i don't really know or care who's going to be winning the race in 5 or even 10 years. but i don't see any reason to think the overall trends in console hardware advancement won't continue for as long as they can. no-one has really done anything but pump graphics and move to bigger/cheaper storage for the past 20 years. the only real innovation has been sony's dual-function ps2, that provided cheap dvd capability to a market that was ready for it.
which is very similar to the situation if someone released a console/pvr in 05/06. Which is the basis for why i think that's even possible to begin with. Sony has to recognize that if MS tries it, they might usurp market control. So Sony has to match it (or call them on it, and hope they're bluffing).
Judging by the creation and sales-rate of the PSX, it looks like Sony is matching.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
The problem here, though, is the perception of being left behind in the race.
Don't think Sony and Microsoft (especially Microsoft) wouldn't immediately capitalize on the abiltiy to claim that Nintendo has fallen behind if they aren't ready with another console when Sony and Microsoft are.
I actually think that both the GC and Xbox have a lot of untapped potential that could take another 4-5 years to fully maximize... but if Sony has a new console, it won't matter. The masses always want something new; and with the hype machine Sony has, don't think that if Nintendo and Microsoft waitied a year after the launch of the PS3 that what we see in this generation (Sony overwhelmingly controlling console marketshare) wouldn't happen again. Even if the PS3 had only 1 launch title, if it was out a year before the others, it would just sell more.
So, while it shortens the GC's and Xbox's lifespans, both companies need to be ready to launch within just a few months of Sony; just to be able to try and compete. IF all three companies release right around the same time, the fight for marketshare will come down to the games, more than 'w3 pwnz0r j00 w17h 0ur h4rdw4r3!!!!!'
Besides, nothing is stopping Nintendo, and others, from releasing GC games into the life of the N5. People were still making games for the NES long into the SNES' life, and SNES games long into the N64's life (ok, N64 games weren't as big in the GC's life). Hell, Nintendo only just stopped making replacement parts for the NES this year.
Eidos
Yes.
Sega Sports
That's a division of a third-party developer, not a third-party developer. Lots of companies don't make all their games for the GameCube, and that's all this is.
Atari
Nope, they just dropped GameCube from two titles, Driv3r and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.
Acclaim (not creating any new titles, but as you point out titles already under production are not being cancelled)
No, that's what was originally reported. The later clarification was that was false, all they are doing is not making every game for every console, instead evaluating each title individually. Worms 3D was announced *today* for the GameCube as well as the others.
and likely Midway
Any reason? Didn't think so.
not a comprehensive list, and not a very long one either
Nor a very accurate one.
losing a handful of big name publishers means fewer titles, and fewer easy royalty profits.
They haven't lost a single big name publisher. In fact, they've gained at least Square-Enix.