Slashdot Mirror
Third Place Is Fine By Nintendo
anaesthetica writes "The New Yorker writes that Nintendo is fine with third place. Between Sony and Microsoft both trying to build the most comprehensively next-generation console, and barely breaking even in their efforts [Zonk: Though that's changing for Microsoft], Nintendo has decided to go a different route. Wii doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it focuses on simple fun playing games — a strategy which turns out to be much better for Nintendo's bottom line and stock prices. From the article: 'A recent survey of the evidence on market share... found that companies that adopt what they call "competitor-oriented objectives" actually end up hurting their own profitability. In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do.'"
because Nintendo is the one console I don't see as a competetor for 3rd place in this race, N will get 1st or 2nd I suspect.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
You mean giving customers what they want will help sell your product?
I'm shocked! Shocked I say!
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
I find the same to be generally true among humans.
in other news the sky has been discovered to be blue, and grass green. no news yet on the study to determine wetness of water
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
All I see are articles talking about how fun Wii is, the new way of interacting with games.
But is this new game play interaction something that can keep the wii going in the longterm?
I have tried it, so I honestly don't if tilt controllers are something to build a console around.
Also, with PS/3 being a fully functional computer with a keyboard/mouse/blueray, its more than just a console. And Xbox live with internet access to media is more than a console. The Wii is a console and priced like it.
I am going to surprise auto industry that is suitable for driving.
Essentially, Nintendo makes its consoles and games and that is the company. They really have nothing else to gain from other things like XBox live, hard drives in consoles, and Sonys Blu Ray. Microsoft and Sony are thinking broader, but still focused on the companies bottom line. If you want to do just the game division, that is fine, but when and if that works that company would find it hard to take that success and apply it to other divisions. The PS3 without Blu Ray is cheaper and maybe easier to make, but if Blu Ray is a success because of the PS3 and/or vice versa, well lets just say Sony will get the last laugh as they dominate to huge markets.
Of course there is more to this and the OP's arguement has merits, but in this dogfight, Sony and Microsoft have FAR FAR more at stake than the success of its gaming division.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
But I've become intrigued enough with the Wii to want to go check it out. If it is half as fun as it looks, I might even buy one. They seem to have delivered something novel enough in the control area to make me want to supplement my PC for gaming and at a reasonable price point instead of the total commitment the other consoles demand.
That's funny. I opened up the link Zonk posted, and the article said this:
"To be clear, we have said that in fiscal 08, entertainment and devices makes money. That's not exactly Xbox. We don't break profit down by business. And there are parts of entertainment and devices that make money. Xbox doesn't. Xbox has to make significant progress to enable E&D to get there. We feel we are on track"
That doesn't necessarily mean the XBox division will start making money. It could (and probably does) mean that they plan to try and hemorrhage less, so that the overall E&D division can finally get in the black.
Although it will probably have an early lead, various times Nintendo people have indicated in interviews that they know that a couple years out the Wii is going to have trouble keeping console player interest in their console due to the increasingly widening gap between it and other consoles and pc's. Too many companies are treating the Wii as an easy way to dump old PS2/GameCube games onto the system and tack on some waggle controls right now. Nintendo's own games are obviously still awesome but they really need to get third party developers to get designed from the ground up Wii games out for the system.
I can't really think of any third party games in the 2007 release list that aren't first party games that I'm that excited about.
the main article is not all that interesting to me, why? it is all old news.
Yes, Nintendo is not goign for bleeding edge tech, instead they gor for games and profit, and b/c of this they make money.
The little 1up article is much more interesting. They see the XBox starting to MAKE money in the next 2 years, last I saw they were not planing on actualy makign money via the xbox for awhile yet, this sounds like the 360 really has been the shot in the arm that MS needed to actualy enter the market and start making money out of it.
Disclamers:
I am a nintendo fanboy, and thus rather familiar with the ups and downs nintendo has gone through. I also bashed the Xbox and loved the PS2. However with this generation I am really looking at the 360 as a great system, though my $$ is still with nintendo. I would personaly rank the 360 and the Wii as rather equal interms of fun that can be gotten out of them, however the $ required to get aid fun is MUCH lower on the side of the Wii. I rank the 360 and Wii well above the PS3 simply due to a lackluster showing of games beign announced.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Personally, I thought they were going to be the next Sega. When the announced the Wii would not be HD capable I figured they were dead in the water. But after pulling what felt like every muscle in my body playing Wii Sports with friends, I have to admit they will be the true winners of this round of console wars. They went with something different and concentrated on gameplay and really pulled it off. Kudos to them.
They made a console that not only appeals to the all-important 18-35 market, but is also going to be a favorite among parents for young kids becasue the games are mostly PG and they even get some exercise playing it.
However, I wouldn't trade my 360 for it. They pulled off an excellent product through innovative concept and gameplay, but I don't think this will dent the demand for the powerful graphics/complexity that true next gen consoles deliver. In its price range, I think the Wii is a healthy addition to have along with a 360 or PS3, but not so much a direct competitor to them among the 18+ crowd.
Dancing with hand motions. Seriously... is someone developing this. It'll be huge in Japan.
Third place by what metric? Units sold? If they're netting the most, doesn't that make them #1?
rooooar
Own one, or own more than one? Most PC owners connect them to smaller, high-resolution monitors. Using a single PC with a small, high-resolution monitor in one room and a larger SD/ED monitor in the other room requires shutting the PC down and carting it around, and I would guess that most users would prefer the convenience of a second machine. Moreover, almost no commercial games for Windows that support multiple players appear to allow multiple players to play on the same screen using gamepads connected to the same USB hub; therefore, four players in the same household would require four computers.
As of right now, the PLAYSTATION 3 console is the cheapest Blu-ray Disc player, and it comes with the capacity to act as a computer and game console for no additional charge. True, each console can run only one app on one TV at once, you'll need more than one device, and for people with no interest in HDTV, a Wii console plus a $40 DVD player is likely a better choice.
Konami probably already holds the patent on ParaParaParadise.
It'll be huge in Japan.PPP was short-lived.
That's something that I've noted (2nd to last paragraph) as well. Right now, everyone is impressed with the new and different way to do things (the intital wow factor) and are still in the honeymoon stage with the console. Nintendo's still riding the chance wave.
Can the console hold everyone's attention? The majority of that (if not all of it) will depend largely on game developers. We know that tons of dev companies are jumping at the chance to make games for the Wii, however if the games suck, people aren't going to buy them and it will reflect poorly on the console. Quite a few initial titles seem to focus around the mini-game theme (shake the Wiimote and Nunchuck up and down in one game, twist the Wiimote back and forth in another). Hopefully either devs won't run the same idea into the ground so that people get bored with it quickly, or they'll think of new and entertaining ways to implement these features so that people don't think a game is just a mirror of another.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Wii (man, that will never stop sounding weird) and have enjoyed playing it. I'm still waiting for some good titles to come out, though."Also, with PS/3 being a fully functional computer with a keyboard/mouse/blueray, its more than just a console. And Xbox live with internet access to media is more than a console. The Wii is a console and priced like it."
Careful...The Wii has different features through the channel meuns - Mii, Photo, Shopping, Forecast (soon to come), Weather (soon to come), Internet browsing (soon to come), and messaging including email. And, supposedly, the next gen of Wiis should feature a DVD channel. To me, the Wii seems more like an entertainment console.
Prove it.
> "In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do.'"
Sadly, this applies to our nation as well.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Sony and Microsoft have comparable products. Nintendo is going it's own way. If you want a traditional console with high definition graphics, you'll be choosing an Xbox 360 or a PS3. If you want Nintendo's motion sensing game console, you'll buy a Wii. I consider the purchase of a Wii to be independent of the purchase of either of the other systems. If you can afford a PS3, you can certainly afford to purchase a Wii as well. Because of the Wii's unique control scheme most of it's games will be Wii exclusive. If you want those games, you'll need to buy a Wii. Most of the games on the other two consoles will be ported to both. So someone who wants to buy an Xbox 360 could change their mind and buy a PS3. And vice versa.
It remains to be seen how well the Nintendo Wii will sell once there is sufficient supply. Three quarters of the people who purchased the Wii also purchased Zelda. Did they purchase a Wii because they want a Wii or because they wanted Zelda? The comment I have about non-gamers picking up the Wii is: The Lord of the Rings movies were very popular among non-nerds, but does that mean that those same non-nerds will play D&D every week? People may play the Wii at someone's house and think it's fun, it doesn't mean that they'll go out and purchase one. High definition televisions are coming down in price which will drive people to want high definition content for them. I think the Wii will do fine, I'll just be a devil's advocate to the Nintendo fanboys. Honestly, I don't think the Wii will be third, it will be competing for first with the Xbox 360. The PS3 will be in last place because it has equivalent graphics to the Xbox 360 for a higher price. 1UP has an article called "PS3: What the Cell is Going On?" (with examples), but I can't directly link to it.
Nintendo and Microsoft's consoles are currently profitable per unit (Microsoft's manufacturing costs have decreased dramatically). Sony is in a bad way with the PS3. Short supply with huge losses per unit. If Sony cuts the price, it's competitors can easily match and exceed that cut. A price war between Microsoft and Nintendo would be an unprecedented disaster for Sony. Imagine the reaction of the Big 3 American auto makers if Toyota and Honda had a price war in the U.S.
What Nintendo is doing is called the Blue Ocean strategy. In books it's illustrated by a surfer on a blue ocean with no other surfers (competitors) around. The alternative is to be in the ocean around other competitors.
This is done by finding other factors to compete on in stead of having the same product as everyone else and basically just competing on the price. This attracts new customers who for some reason don't like Playstation or X-Box. So they have that market to them self...
Excellent point. I often have seen the same said of open source. It's not about beating Microsoft. As long as the software we make is useful to us, we can't lose.
Really? What else? Oh yeah, they both can play media for which there is little to no content out yet.
Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of us don't have HDTV sets with 1080p.
I'm waiting until 2009 to buy mine, when they're cheap. At that point, I'll probably get a new game console too.
But for now, bleeding edge at a $4500 cost ($2000 HDTV plus $2000 speakers plus $500 PS3 (or $600)) just seems like a waste.
I'd rather play fun games that exist today on my Wii.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Surely you know that most of the money the console manufacturers make is from per-game licensing fees? The console isn't sold at much of a profit (if any). So it is, in fact, crucial that the console manufacturer ensure that good games for their platform keep being produced, and that you in fact continue to buy new games for the platform.
Ah, true for PS3 and xBox360. In fact, PS3 loses anywhere from $240 to $306 on each PS3 sold.
But not true for Nintendo - they make money on both the GameCube and the Wii.
Which is one reason why Wii games are cheaper, IMHO.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re-read my post. I didn't say that the manufacturer didn't make a profit on the console. I said they didn't make "much" of a profit -- certainly not much compared to the licensing fees.
My point was that the lion's share of the money is from continued purchase of games, not from the initial console purchase.
[
Its that simple. Nintendo cant compete on the hardware level. Nintendo barely even makes their own games these days.
:)
...
That's why the Gamecube (which was considered to be roughly as powerful as the XBox) was able to be released at the same time as the XBox, cost $100 less than the XBox and (unlike the XBox) was sold at a profit. Nintendo could have produced a system that was more powerful than the competition and charged less than the competition but would likely have lost market share; they needed something drastically different in order to attract gamers, and they needed something drastically less expensive to develop for to attract developers.
All they did was buy motion sensing technology and designed a controller. They should just release it for PS3 and 360, and sell it for $200
With the exception of Guitar Hero and DDR I can't think of a single add on that was actually purchased by anyone
ah, but I was pointing out that, while the xBox360 and PS3 lose money on thier consoles - only now has the xBox360 loss dropped to reasonable levels, a year after introduction, the Nintendo consoles make money from day one.
Thus, they can sell dev kits for $2000 for the Wii instead of $20000 for the xBox360 and PS3.
And drop prices on games.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Please. Building a fast system isn't a huge challenge. Look at the PS3 and 360. They're huge systems. Look at a PS3 dissected. Half of the system is a giant heatsink. Nintendo could have made an uber system, put it in a big box, and sold it for $400-600 like MS and PS3.
Nintendo barely makes their own games? Umm, rethink that one. Sure, they have other companies take on projects for them, but Nintendo is the BIGGEST SOFTWARE company in the game industry. They release more games per year than anyone else, bottom line. Of course they're going to outsource work.
And don't worry about Nintendo selling it to their competitors, Sony and MS will steal it (heck, Sony half way already had with their new controller) like Nintendo's competition always has. You have dreamers and doers and you have followers...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
It's eternally slashdotted, and yet we still link to it on average once a day (it seems).
It's funny to see some people calling the XBox360 and the PS3 "just the same old warmed-over stuff with high-resolution graphics", talking up the Wii's "innovativeness", while others refer to the Wii as yesterday's technology with an extra gimmick or two, instead of what PS3/XBox360 are doing...
In the past, "innovative" controllers have been released for Nintendo consoles (Power Glove, U-Force, Power Pad, ROB the robot), but none of those ever had more than a couple of games at most that were really designed for the controller, because releasing it as a new controller for an existing system made it a gimmick. The Wiimote possibly could have been a GameCube add-on. It's probably not the technological focus of the console. But it is the philosophical focus of the Wii. Almost all Wii games are designed specifically for the Wii controller. At this point the controller can no longer be considered a gimmick, since it's really an integral part of the whole console. The console would have to be the gimmick, and time will tell. There seems to be an awful lot of reviewers out there that write about how playing games on the Wii is "just plain fun", and they can't stop smiling while they play. At this point it's still hard to buy a Wii at any retail store because they're selling out, just like the PS3. I'd say the Wii is not going to be just a gimmick.
From what I understand it's about twice as capable as a GameCube. Obviously it doesn't have the graphical power of the PS3 or the XBox360, but as it has been said many many times, that's not what they're going for. I'm guessing that a lot of the focus on the earliest game development has been on making the controller work well with games. I'm sure that once developers get more familiar with the Wii, they'll be more prepared to make use of the added power the Wii has over the GameCube, just like developers will do over time for the new generations of the other consoles.
Wii Sports is included with the console (for now), and games in general seem to peak out at around $50, with some going as low as $30.
That aside, the article also has one of the worst examples of corporatese that I've heard in a while: Yeah, we said we'd make money in Entertainment. Yes, one of our biggest Entertainment products is Xbox. No, it's not going to make money. In fact, Sony is going to cream us at Christmas. Yes, we're okay with that. Everything is going according to plan.
This guy sounds like if he were born a generation ago, he'd be working on the USSR's latest Five Year Plan, to go into effect three and a half years after the last one.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Interesting. Psychology studies have shown that when you compare people who have performance goals (focused on performing at a certain level to win outside approval or rewards, or avoid punishments) with those who have mastery goals (focused on mastering a task in order to learn, grow, reach personal goals, etc rather than to gain outside approval), the people with performance goals do much worse in the face of challenge. They adopt self-defeating behaviors and give up quickly, whereas the mastery-oriented people keep working at it and modify their strategies in useful ways.
I guess since companies are made up of a bunch of people, it makes sense that on some levels they work the same way as those people work. If they're focused on beating the outside competition, they falter, whereas if they're focused on improving themselves (even if that's profit-wise, since that's what's important to a company), they prosper.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Gamecube was a failure. I'm not talking about the buisness of the gamecube, i'm talking about the interest in it.
.... but is it enough?
:) We'll see how happy they are in 2 years.
It was a failure. You think Nintendo really likes being second to Sony? How about third to Microsoft? You really think the mighty Nintendo is happy that has to take the buisness model of the V-tech video gaming system to compete? (Ok thats harsh) My point is they're pulling away from the gaming scene in some respects. They cant compete with Sony's ambitious custom hardware developement, or Xbox360's deep pockets.
Believe me, they know that they cant compete with the hardware. If they could, they might have tried.
I didnt say it was a bad move to try something new. Infact i applaud them for it greatly. I really hope the Wii is an incredible experience that lasts beyond the initial gimmick honeymoon phase. I really do. I'd like to try a Wii (friends have them bought for their children on xmas and cant open them) I'm looking forward to a new way of playing games. Can nintendo bring that? Perhaps...
Is it enough to hurt Sony and Microsoft? no. Is it enough to keep Nintendo alive in the home console market? not so sure about that. Sony and Microsoft could easily release a better, more developed controller device with similar/even more features... and still have a console that is by far superior.
My point is... i dont think its enough. It may be... and they may have convinced themselves that its ok to be last place in gaming... But thats really the beginning of the end of Nintendo has a serious gaming company if they're happy being last.... Cause the consumers are basically saying "you're not what i really want..."
Thats not good for nintendo. That controller is going to save their console division? Thats one hell of a gamble.
Of course nintendo isnt hurting money wise too much... just not the same deep pockets. Hell the DS is doing great. Better than Sony's PSP which Sony and developers seem to have forgotten about.
Its just not good for Nintendo. This is nintendo we're talkign about... the great nintendo... they seem content with being last and less desirable? Thats bullshit. They cant compete with the hardware, so they're tyring a different strategy. It's not a bad one
It seems like nintendo is already accepting that they will be in last place... That just doesnt sound good to me. If they keep their buisness going and running, employees employed, etc... so be it. In the end that matters just as much. But dont tell me they're happy with 3rd place
"In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do."
The more a company ignores what their customers really want, by looking only at competitors or the bottom line, the more likely they are to fail. (and deserve it!)
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
I believe that the Xbox 360 has now dropped in production costs enough that MS turns a small (very small) profit on the $400 version, and looses only a small amount on the $300 CORE version. It's because of this that a lot of people are hoping they'll drop the price of the console further... but with MS staying at their current price point they seem to be following the article in that they're concentrating more on the bottom line (staying at current price and making a small profit on the console) then boosting market share to compete with Sony (dropping their price and taking losses again just to get more people to buy).
Nintendo is one of those companies that at least for the last two generations has turned a small profit right from the start. Most console hardware is profitable by the end of it's lifespan, IIRC Sony makes about $50 on every PS2 sold at this point. Part of the reason MS dropped Xbox 1 production so quickly was because it still wasn't profitable while the Xbox 360 is already.
Collector's Edition
I want a cell phone that just makes calls -- no camera, no games, just a phone
I don't think I've ever seen a console upgrade fare well. Remember the Sega CD and 32X? When upgrades cost almost as much as a new console, they end up locking out many potential customers who don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars all the parts.
Perhaps in HTPCs become common, we'll see consoles replaced with cool controllers, but such a shift is at least 5-10 years away, if not more.
No, I will not work for your startup
Raw computational/graphical power? admittedly. Profitability, earning/cost ratio? probably not, we will see. Fun factor? Definitely NOT!
Anything? What about playing independent games, those which are self-published by a company that's too small to get recognized by Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo?
The PS3 has the potential to do very well. I think they will screw it up (they are Sony after all), but the fact that you can install Linux on these systems, could do a lot for their market share. The multi-computer household is here today. People have their primary Windows box for the Windows only stuff. How many people would like to have a second system in the kids room or study for web surfing and word processing, and would see the PS3 as good multi-purpose machine, much like the C64 of old. The problem is that you can get a brand new PC for $150 if you really watch the sales. Few people are going to spend $600-$800 to do the same thing on the PS3. If 3D can get working in Linux on the PS3, this will help, as then home brew can get a foothold.
I fully expect Nintendo to launch full-on into the HD scene with the next console after the Wii. I think the Wii was their start to moving in a different direction for games. And it came at a great time, since HDTV's aren't completely widespread yet. I'm sure that Wii 2.0 will be a higher-powered, 1080p system with graphics as good as those of Xbox 720 and PS4, but by then, they'll already have the Wiimote philosophy ingrained into people's minds, and they'll have technical issues (and practical things, like broken wrist-straps) solved.
They'll be ready to recapture the people who thought Nintendo doesn't do a "performance" console, and they'll be able to keep their current casual/new gamer market.
The real question is Nintendo making a profit? So long as it is recouping marginal costs plus the the fix costs spread out over the entire number of consoles made plus a profit margin, then they are making a sufficient amount.
Nintendo doesn't have to compete on the hardware level, which is what's giving them their advantage right now. Focusing on gameplay without spending all those hours on the bells and whistles allows for a simple, highly entertaining experience. I think that Nintendo did a great job at targeting their market. It feels as if the Playstations and Xbox'es are resembling home computers more and more. This is one of the reason's I am going to go Nintendo instead of the other two. I have my Oblivion and Battlefield 2 FPS games already. I don't feel like spending $600 just to play an FPS on a console (I admit that console games are more "trouble free" than PC games though)..I'd rather just buy the 360 controller and USB it into my computer if i wanted it. If I need "insane" graphics, I'll get another 7900GTX and SLI it when the time comes. Nintendo, however, is offering a unique experience and an emphasis on gameplay, which is something that has been lacking in a majority of the market (there are always exceptions..gears of war..final fantasy...
Sony and Microsoft could easily release a better, more developed controller device with similar/even more features... and still have a console that is by far superior.
But that would just be an add-on. Nintendo dived head-first into the Wiimote and made it the heart of the Wii experience. It's not just an optional add-on for playing a few games with. It is the controller for the system. They have worked for a long time to make the Wiimote experience solid and accurate and fun. Sure Sony or MS or any 3rd party could manufacture a Wii-like controller for the other systems, but not only would it not have the entire philosophical focus of the console behind it, the manufacturer wouldn't put the development and fine-tuning time into it to make it work well, or to make it work for any variety of games. (Look up U-Force or Power Glove on wikipedia for examples.)
It seems like nintendo is already accepting that they will be in last place.
TFA doesn't give any quotes or direct evidence that Nintendo doesn't care about market share. It doesn't necessarily give any real evidence that it will come in 3rd for market share, either, although it does talk about it as if it's a foregone conclusion. The only real information in the article is about how Nintendo isn't going after the fancy graphics technology. It's not like they've dropped out of exciting game technology. They've just switched their focus from the graphics to the physical interface.
All of the 3rd place market share talk in TFA is really more about the GameCube days than the Wii era. They were the most profitable company back then, too. But now they have a whole new approach to gaming interfaces, a simple and exciting system to develop for, and a small, simple, and quiet box to set next to your TV. I'd say any assumptions about Nintendo being 3rd in the new generation's race are very premature. Especially considering the fact that you still have to camp out on a sidewalk or at the least call ahead to a retail store and stand in a long line to even get your hands on a Wii, 10 days after launch.
"In other words, the more a company focuses on beating its competitors, rather than on the bottom line, the worse it is likely to do."
My understanding is that Microsoft and Sony are not in the gaming business for short-term profits. In spending like crazy to try to beat eachother to a pulp, they believe that this is a winner-take-all market, like operating systems. The network effects of increased market share (more share -> more developers -> more & better games -> more share, repeat) point to a clear winner and equally clear losers. Nintendo realizes it can't spend with Microsoft or Sony, so they're wisely bowing out of the bigger fight, going for a more niche market. In the end, if the companies are proven right, their massive long-term profits from acting as a near monopoly (ala Microsoft in the OS market) will make Nintendo's near-term profits look downright embarrasing.
Okay, so I'm no marketting gneius, but it seems to me, if there's any sort of competition for first place, then the consumer benefits rather than the companies. They'll be competing on the amount they spend and the prices they charge so they're both trying to provide more for less.
Niche products are different. If you have exactly what a small niche wants, then you have 100% of that niche. You don't need to compete with anyone so you can charge whatever they're willing to pay. Having 100% of 10% of the market is a lot better than 10% of 90% of the market.
Of course Nintendo is happy with third place as they are not at the same level as the other two and have no other reasonable choice but to go for the niche market. But don't attack and competition based strategy simply because it is not the best strategy for Nintendo. The destruction of your competitor is the basis of capitalism. It breeds innovation. What better way to do this than targeting a competitor.
Didn't they cover this theory in "A Beautiful Mind?" If everyone tries to be number one, everybody loses? Sounds like Sony and Microsoft need to take some basic economics courses.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
It was a failure. You think Nintendo really likes being second to Sony? How about third to Microsoft?
I think they probably don't care, as long as they're raking in the dough.
And in the next two years, I plan to start sleeping with Gwen Stefani.
Both our plans have an equal chance of happening. What are they going to say? "We see ourselves spending large amounts of cash to fail spectacularly."
That means that most fields of human endeavor are more complicated than a football game with one (1) winner and one (1) loser.
*head asplode*
How ever shall we cope with the bewildering complexity?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
An independent developer who wants to port a game to Fedora for PS3 can avoid the problems that plague a lot of Xbox 360 games by redesigning its screens to use larger fonts. Is there a similar option for indies who want to port their games to Wii?
Seriously people, You forgot something. Wii is more then just a simple game console. It is Game Console plus Internet Browser. Why do people keep forgetting that Opera will bring it's browser to Wii. Wii just needs a keyboard and wit is fully functional WebTV (aka MSN TV)
Wii's key points
1. Affordable for most families.
2. Family friendly games.
3. Backwards compatible all the way to NES.
4. Motion sensitive controller.
6. A company focusing on game play rather then graphics.
7. And best of all, Opera.
\
Not sure how credible this is but according to http://nexgenwars.com/ Nintendo is already in second.
but the fact that you can install Linux on these systems, could do a lot for their market share
I sincerely hope you were just joking right? You couldn't seriously think that this magical "install Linux on a Console" market has the potential to do anything for the market share.. Do you? Oh gosh.. you do..
So many injustices..so little time..
"If I need "insane" graphics, I'll get another 7900GTX and SLI it when the time comes"
PC gaming is dead. SLI 7900GTX is over kill for a pc when there are so few games that really even need that much power.
Everything most of you said makes sense. Yes its a new way to play games... blah blah blah. We all know that. Cut through the marketing bs and get to the point... IS IT ENOUGH?
Is it enough to save Nintendo's Wii? Is it enough to provide a diverse library of games on the Wii. Again, Sony and MS could easily develope a similar or better input device... and still have a bigger market share.
Is it enough? We'll find out. But This statement about being happy about 3rd place is bullshit. They're happy that they're still around and surviving as a company but they are not happy about being in 3rd place.
They couldnt compete because they didnt want to spend the money... cause it would have hurt their company. Smart move? sounds like it. But Nintendo is admitting defeat and they are in effect taking themselves out of the fight.
The Wii isnt even HD. Thats crazy.
Druker said that a business must pay a lot of attention to people who are not currently its customers. Losing sight of potential customers who are not actual customers creates the warfare that Sony and Microsoft now find themselves in: battling hard for big market share gains, but with very little revenue and profitability impact, and absolutely no growth of the market.
It's hard to believe how far Microsoft has fallen in such a short time. This is a company in serious trouble, that can only make bullheaded attempts to attack other companies' profit centers (such as the iPod) without providing innovation that will grow any market. It's much harder to attack a competitor directly, and much easier to grow by feasting on the customers that existing competitors don't care about (or don't even know about).
It may be that Office and Windows 95 will define Microsoft in the same way that the Xerox copier defined Xerox, and with similar destructive results. Don't even talk about Sony, and its value destroying investments in media and pop culture. Here's the rule of successful companies: go where the competitor isn't and provide what that customer needs.
There is nothing new here - this is what Nintendo has always been doing. They provide simpler games that everyone can enjoy, and focus on gameplay rather than cool graphics. This is what Nintendo is all about.
At the same time, it is exactly opposite of what SONY is all about, and those two have been co-existing peacfully for quite an time now. Only question is where will xbox fit in the global scheme of things.
I have tried to convince myself pretty hard that I should get it for xmas, but after looking over game reviews I might get it only once more true sports games come out, as current lineup is quite weak, with pretty bad graphics. Although they have stated that graphics are "2x better than GameCube", most current games are same level as GC or even worse. Not an RPG fan really either.
Good job Nintendo for creating good interest for Wii, after GameCube... most people also dont know that DS Lite is selling like crazy, and outselling PSP 2x1 everywhere.
Yes. Yes I do. Obviously Sony does as well, or they would not have done it. Besides, it has happened before.
I agree with Nintendo. Game companies need to be focusing more on gameplay and not graphics. I bought myself a GP2X to be able to play old SNES and Sega games because the games were so much better. They focused on the actual game, and not the detail of someones face.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
Well yeah, exactly. With the Wii being sold at a price point that is already profitable, I don't think Nintendo is in a position that it has to give a crap if you buy a Wii in addition to something else. Whereas the big offsetting factor for consoles that lose money is that you'll buy the games, you'll buy the online services, and so on. In the world of XBox, for example, since they need the revenue from the ongoing purchase of games and services just to make back their losses and turn a profit, it has to matter to them if you also buy a Wii because that means you have less dollars to spend on their own add-on service(s) and games.
But if every Wii turns a profit, then those add-on services they sell are gravy, not vital tactics to "winning". From the point of view of Nintendo, I'd argue that the fact that you (or others) consider the Wii a "healthy addition" is wonderful for Nintendo because they'll still make a profit even if you only see it as an addition to the more...serious console purchase. But from the point of view of Sony and MS, buying that "additional system" is totally anathema.
Every dollar you spend on Wii is a dollar not spent on something they desperately need to sell you to make up the cash they're giving away with that loss leader HD system they sold you.
Intriguingly, in the Nintendo model, for all the fluffy marketing talk about gameplay and revolution, the business side doesn't care one tiny little bit what your heart feels about the Wii, as long as you buy one. Insofar as you love it and give them more gravy, they do not have to care. Other than whatever enjoyment they get in making more money.
Whereas for the other two--for all the talk about the game platforms as hardcore, better, more technically accomplished true blue and the perception of their philosophies as supposedly more mature, hard nosed, cutthroat and, let's be honest, American and masculine--the other two need you, yes you, to love them; need you to believe it in your heartso that you never hesitate to keep your dollars right there, with them, where they are more needed and rightfully belong.
Nintendo's little faerie machine liberates the more old-fashioned, hard-nosed business model from messy sticky feelings and gives it a very pretty black bottom line to look at. Is the Wii really a limp wristed sissybox for weirdo degenerates? Or the phalanx of a 21st century global corporate Captain Of Industry?
And let us not set aside that tone in which the Wii is described by detractors--throwing around terms that first degrade homosexuality and/or femininity, then apply those degraded conceptualizations to the Wii in contrast to the normative (generally, heterosexual male) features of the other platforms. There's a lot of masculine defensiveness tied up in the XBox and PS3.
Which one is a more healthy view? In the context of critiquing a game you also attack women and homosexuals in order to defend systems whose makers ultimately need you to fall in love with them? (or to be fair to the Joystiq article linked above, your roommate, who is not so much "critiquing" as standing in for a fairly wide swath of the gaming community) Or you make a game system that makes money and, by virtue of a neutrally functioning business model doesn't give a shit if you're straight, gay, male, female, young or old? Whose word of mouth representatives can depend less on diminishment of something or someone else.
If I owned stock in Sony and MS I'd be forced to ask, are you putting our money into a product that depends on how people feel in order for you to actually make money on it? And then are
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
Most people think that the Wii supply is sufficient to meet demand.
Let's look at past "console wars" 1. original nintendo vs. atari -original nintendo won for having better games and a more intuitive controller, plus it was packaged with a robot which really saved the industry. 2. Super Nintendo vs. Sega - Similar graphical power, SNES won for having the most good games and third party support. 3. Nintendo 64 vs. PS1 - 64 had superior graphical power, but Sony won for bringing in the use of cd's instead of cartridges. 4. xbox vs. ps2 vs. gamecube - GC and Xbox had superior graphical power, but sony won for having the most 3rd party support. For the record, I say won loosely. It's not an exclusive market. Most of the "hardcore gamers" will own more than one console. This round, I predict Nintendo to do the best simply because they brought in a new concept. Developers seem excited about it, which will garner it more 3rd party support. And it's all at a much lower price than it's competitors. Frankly, I don't care if you can run the entire earth on your console. If Pong's more fun, I'm playing Pong.
I see the Wii as a very shrewd move for Nintendo. If the Wii garners a modest 20 Million units Nintendo will just take thier profits go back to a more traditional consol in the next generation. No big loss for Nintendo. If the Wii takes off though, neither Sony nor Microsoft will be able to compete with Nintendo in the next generation because of the patents on the wiimote. Now, they could come up with something totaly new but given thier track record that does not seem very likely. Worst case, Nintendo is still #3 and still makes a good profit. Best case, Nintendo gains a definative advantage for the next 15 years.
It is my belief that the PS3-Linux connection is likely to do more damage than good. The PS3 is a very powerful computer at it's *ahem* core. However, the crowd that's likely to run Linux on it is the crowd that's not likely to run out and buy a whole lot of video games or Blu-Ray movies. My figures may not be accurate, but I'd understood that Sony is losing something like ~$200 per console. This means that, for every console they sell to someone that doesn't buy at least $200 worth of additional product, they are taking damage.
Heck, I'm tempted to buy one and turn it into a Linux box so that I can deliberately damage Sony. I've been finding myself increasingly angry with them over the past few years, and quite frankly I think it's time for them to get spanked for their behavior. However, I'm not tempted enough to shell out $600 to do it. heheheheheheh
Everything most of you said makes sense.
Unlike that statement...
Cut through the marketing bs and get to the point... IS IT ENOUGH?
I don't know... try playing it... that's the only way to "cut through the marketing bs" and find out for yourself before passing judgment. Or watch the news, or Slashdot or Digg articles and see how many people are buying and enjoying their Wiis.
Again, Sony and MS could easily develope a similar or better input device... and still have a bigger market share.
The Wiimote wasn't something that was just thrown together... it was developed over a period of years, and heavily tested and refined. I'd like to see Sony or MS just "easily develop" a controller that completely changes the mechanics of gameplay, then get developers to design for it. Good luck on that.
And features? Bluetooth, expansion port (for nunchuk, classic controller, and future possible add-ons), simple button layout, onboard memory for storing Mii information, built-in speaker, rumble (Sony doesn't seem willing to license it)... I'm sure someone can come up with some more interesting features, but I'd say Nintendo did a great job coming up with features that not only made sense, but were also things that took some imagination. If MS designs a similar controller, it will have functionality that noone will figure out how to use, 3 times as many buttons as necessary, and will not work consistently.
But Nintendo is admitting defeat and they are in effect taking themselves out of the fight.
Where did you hear that? It looks to me like they're squarely in the fight to sell consoles, and I think they will sell plenty (and they are selling them so far). They're not directly competing with MS and Sony because those two have tried to make a games console that's not just a games console anymore. Nintendo's doing what they've always done, and expanding their market to new users. Sounds like it's been doing well in only 10 days. I'm guessing they're not worried about market share yet.
The Wii isnt even HD. Thats crazy.
Most TVs in homes across America or across the world are not HDTV's, and Nintendo knows it. Their goal of appealing to the casual gamer doesn't require HD, but it does require keeping costs down, which means not blowing their Bill of Materials costs on HD hardware. I'd say that for what they're trying to do, including HD support would be crazy. They're saving HD for the next round.
That was a selling point for the Xbox because that made it a damn cheap media pc. The PS3, on the other hand, costs more than a nice desktop, and certainly more than a media box that can sit next to your other multimedia hardware. The only attractive aspect of wedging an OS onto a console was the price, and Sony fucked that one up pretty good.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
The more a company focuses on keeping it's employee's happy and pleasing (building products for and support the) customers the better it does...
Competition between companies helps the customers in a secondary way (better products, cheaper prices) but that is a side benefit.
Is it that hard to see that when your customers are a second priority and are treated like "consumers" (aka mindless money machines) that the company will suffer?
Apparently so, when articles like this are so eye opening they deserve special attention...
What are the future CEO's learning in their high profile colleges anyway?
"Games for everyone!"
"Everyone" is just a euphemism for non-gamers. As a gamer, I find the "games for non-gamers" movement offensive. I don't believe that the gaming community should be insular, and I welcome the expansion of the video game consumer base, but I don't think that expansion should be achieved by purposefully developing a console and games for non-gamers.
"Nintendo transcends the console wars!"
This bit of propaganda rationalizes the limited graphical capabilities of the Wii. But the problem with the argument that gameplay matters and graphics do not is that the two are related. Graphical advancement matters because greater graphical capabilities enable new forms of gameplay. Take, for example, open-roaming games, which were not feasible prior to the PlayStation 2/Xbox era. Compare Grand Theft Auto I and Grand Theft Auto III. The graphical limitations of the PlayStation 1 acted as a constraint on the gameplay of the former, which was presented in a cumbersome and unsatisfying top-down two-dimensional format. The advent of the following generation enabled the GTA series developers to realize the goal of allowing players to roam about an expansive city in three dimensions.
I would wager that the power of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 will foster more development in gameplay than will the Wii's motion-sensitive controls.
... I will sell my freaking spleen if I can use my Wiimote as a drumstick for something like DrumMania. Make it all Nintendo theme and put in the theme to Zelda or something as a bonus track. It will also sell more Wiimotes than anything since you just KNOW people are going to be chucking them at walls in a cymbal-crashing frenzy. Then again, knowing Nintendo, the Wiimote would probably emerged unscathed.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I'm not sure what that means in ranking terms. I'm waiting until after Christmas for both.
I'm getting a PS3 for the computer room just so I can play with programming the Cell Processor. I'd imagine IBM would sell the Cell Workstations (POWER 7?)for upwards of $2k. The PS3 is a steal. I can't wait to do some Ray Tracing/Mandelbrot calculations.
Were getting a Wii for the family room. I asked my oldest son who is just now getting into programming/animation what game he would design for the Wii Controller. He said he would write an orchestra game. I said what? He said picture yourself as the director of a band. You can use the controller like a baton to control an animated orchestra. Smart kid, I might have to pay for a Wii Dev Kit.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
"I don't know why so many people seem to think there is some vast inchoate yearning on the part of the general public to run Linux."
Because your making it up. Most people don't care what OS they are running. The only reason I said Linux is because it is extremely unlikely that MS is going to port Windows to the PS3 and offer Sony an incredibly cheap OEM price. Of the OS choices that could be ported to the PS3, Linux is the most advanced by a very wide margin, and given that 2 Linux distros have already been ported it is the obviouse OS choice for people that DO NOT care what OS they are running. They also have no need for a high powered personal computer in the on the PS3. The primary reason to have a high power PC is for gaming. Given that the vast majority of gaming would not be done from the OS, a relatively slow personal computer would be just fine for most.
Obviously I don't have real figures, but I have the strong suspicion that consoles loose money the way movies loose money... in the accounting office. Even if they loose some money on each console, there is great value in having sold a lot of units. We live in a team society. Whether it is voting for the presidential candidate that you think will win, to placing your value as a person on what football team you like, people are worried about picking a looser, even it it meets their needs. If Sony can sell twice as many units the first year as MS, their second year will be better. Price is a problem though...
I like that this was marked Troll because it poses a negative truth about a likable company, and not a company which sues you for stealing their stuff. =D
This is an incredibly deep statement, and is an angle I had hitherto not considered. Obviously I can't mod this thread, but you'd be getting a +1 insightful from me if I could.
Nintendo is actually in a better position to make a more powerful console than either Sony or Microsoft.
While Nintendo is not as large a business as either of their 2 competitors, Nintendo has, at last estimates, around $10 billion in liquid assets. That's over twice what Microsoft lost on the original Xbox. Sony and Microsoft have to make up for any losses from other divisions, because they don't keep large amounts of cash on hand. Nintendo could afford it, if that's what they wanted to do, but you know what that would get them? The most powerful console of this generation and still being in 3rd place.
The n64 was more powerful than the PS1 and lost, the GC was more powerful than the PS3 and lost. If the Wii was more powerful than the PS3, but still used a standard controller, it would still lose. If you read the article, it has nothing in it about what Nintendo wants, it simply says that Nintendo can survive comfortably in 3rd place from now until people give up video games.
But if you look at what Nintendo is actually saying, you'll see that what they want is 1st place, and they know that more power isn't the way to get it, at least not for them. After E3, a Microsoft exec (Howard Lincoln?) is quoted as saying 'you could buy a 360 & a Wii for the price of a PS3'. Days later a Sony exec (Kaz Hirai?), is quoted as saying, 'We see no reason people wouldn't buy a Wii as a second system to go with their PS3'. When a Nintendo exec was question about these comments (Reggie Fils-Aime?), his response was 'Well, really, I'd rather people buy our system instead of our competitors.' (All quotes are paraphrased from memory, hence the single-quotes.)
Nintendo's goal is to be the company people turn to for gaming first, and they've realized that more power is not the way to do that. They way to do that is to provide something that no one else does, and to be the first one to do it. It doesn't matter that Sony & Microsoft can emulate or even directly copy what Nintendo is offering. Nintendo is the first to do it, and unless they can do it better than Nintendo does, people will assume that Nintendo is the only one offering.
The way to do that is to appeal to people who don't normally game. Gamers are a small percentage of the total population. If you can sell to every non-gamer, even if not one single gamer buys your console, you win. Realistically, they can't sell to every non-gamer, and the hardest of the hardcore gamers are going to buy all 3 consoles. Plus they still have Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Smash Bros., Fire Emblem, Pikmin, F-Zero, Donkey Kong and countless other IP exclusive to their console, so they've got at least the 20 million from last generation locked up. They get to add to that everyone who loved an NES or Atari 2600, but couldn't wrap their head around the new controller. They get to add everyone who thinks just sitting in front of a screen pressing buttons is stupid, but getting up and moving around is fun. They get to add everyone who enjoyed watching games, but could never really play them before. They get to add everyone who just wants to play a few minutes at a time, and not spend their entire day exploring Vice City. And of equal importance, they have a chance to change the image that gamers have of them. That's why they're hyping 3rd party efforts like Red Steel & Call of Duty 3, and working of 1st/2nd Party projects like Disaster, Necro-Nesia & Project HAMMER.
Nintendo has done anyting but concede the game. All they've done is change the rules.
just some guy
Plus the cost of incorporation. Plus the cost of hiring somebody to research and write your business plan. Plus the cost of developing and marketing a title for another platform[1] to demonstrate your company's ability to perform. Plus the cost of renting office space, as offices that are attached to a residence are not secure enough for Nintendo.
[1] Nintendo claims that any other platform qualifies, but no major console or handheld platforms are available to startups. The only major open gaming platform is the Microsoft Windows platform, and this platform has not demonstrated a demand for single-head multiplayer games such as Bomberman.
This is what's going on in that Microsoft statement:
Remember: plans are useless, but planning is essential...
Are you adequate?
The nintendo gaming console division seems to be fine, they make a boatload of money thanks to being wiser in their business model, they could go on for another 100 years with that one and being third and still have enough cash. In your assumption you forgot one thing. Nintendo sells even the hardware with profit. So the calculation of how many games you have to sell til you reach break even is a completely different one, it is zero games in Nintendos case. Not they sold 600.000 consoles alone in the usa with possibly 6-10 mio to be sold within the next year worldwide and probably cashing in 50-100 dollars on the hardware alone, go figure who the real winner is. Sony on their hands if they cannot push down the costs significantly very soon has a problem on their hands. 300 dollars is a sum which is hard to get back from game sells, since many non hardcore customers happily settle down with 3-4 games, and from every game sold, Sony raises about 20 dollars. Now Ninteno on their hand has definitely a few sure sellers like Zelda and Mario games which are sure million sellers (Mario and Zelda in the long run probably around 4 mio) So they might not be happy not being #1 but on the other hand, I rather see Sony going down the drain than Nintendo console business wise!
Consider your spleen sold, I guess.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
This means that, for every console they sell to someone that doesn't buy at least $200 worth of additional product, they are taking damage.
i suspect most people who buy one will wan't it at least partly for gaming as if you don't then its not worth buying (ok so a few devs who wan't to play arround on a PPC box might too but i doubt that number will be signficiant to sony).
its a pity linux wasn't installed out of the box but if sony and the distros can make the installation newbie friendly (should be pretty easy given that its known hardware) then it will be a nice value add to have basic desktop apps availible on your gaming box, some may even decide it makes a PC at home unessacery.
also through emulators it allows running of illegal copies of old games (imo this is significant since running old games is a killer feature of the wii that sony would find it hard to compete with legally)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
The problem with an actual PC is that the vast majority of actual PCs have tiny monitors that do not allow four adult players to sit around them. The alternative, one player per machine, is $3,000, unaffordable for many families. So if an independent studio has developed a party game that could be the next Bomberman and has completed a working prototype that runs on a PC with a TV-out video card, how should this be marketed?
It's not that insightful, it's the reason that Sony are doing it. It probably used to be insightful, but I think a few companies work that way (the larger ones anyway). Didn't the X-Box or 360 do the same thing?
:/ not really.. yes I like Linux, but realistically, console gamers likely wouldn't even understand how or why they should run Linux..
:)
And it's really weird that you think that being able to run Linux on a console would affect its market share.. being able to run Windows or Mac OS would, but Linux..
I used to think that consoles were going to die with the advent of decent graphics and power on the PC, but soon I shall be playing with my Wii
which is totally what she said
Nintendo has always innovated with their controllers. You're only listing the ones that were failures. Oh, and they didn't make the Power Glove, that was a third-party accessory.
My point was precisely that the original controller is what matters in a console, that's what developers will design for. It's the add-ons that haven't done well, with very limited games designed for them. Of course I'm counting the Wiimote as the original controller, the GGP said above that Sony or MS could just copy the Wiimote and make it as an add-on for their systems. My point was that as an add-on it doesn't make sense or rise above the gimmick level, and it wouldn't have games developed for it. As the original controller for the system (and the heart of the Wii philosophy), it will spur a lot of new thinking about how game controls are designed. Lots of developers will design games for it because it is the primary interface for the whole console.
The actual Nintendo controllers have always set the standard in the industry since the NES. As you described, every generation of Nintendo consoles has had some great new features in the controller, which are then copied by the next generation of the other consoles. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the stock controllers on the new consoles 5 years from now will have built-in speakers, non-volatile memory for holding players' avatars, and motion sensing functionality (OK, Sony already stepped into that one with the sixaxis).
I think Nintendo has made a brilliant move. Let Sony and Microsoft cater to the people (drones) who are going to buy the next gen consoles anyway, no matter how bad or good they are.....Nintendo is taking it to the next level and catering to an untapped market -- actually 2 markets.
1. The people like me that are casual gamers but do not rush out to buy any console in the first year or even 2 -- but may pick up second hand or once the price point has dropped a level or 3. But are intrigued enough by the unique "one of a kind" breakthroughs that Nintendo is pushing to actually go out and get one at full price within 6 months of launch.
2. People that were never really in the market for a console because of a variety of reasons -- not the least being the lethargic nature of the gamer being pinned down to the couch as mold grows under his/hers ass.
This is only fueled by the rave reviews the wii is getting.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I'm getting the 360 to play Gears of War, Dead Rising, and a bunch of others, and getting a Wii for the kids, and to play with guests. The Wii's so inexpensive I don't have to choose one or the other, I can get a 360 and a Wii for about what a PS3 would've cost.
.... that I have no idea what you are talking about.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What would stop Sony to do that?
In any case, if MythTV is a real bitch to configure in PCs, why do you think that it will eventually be any better in the PS3?
It is not like Sony willl be sharing their precious trade secrets with a bunch of "hippies".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry budy, there are not many like you.
Sensible people would not buy anymore an article that breaks constantly.
It is not like these machines are articles of first necesity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.