Wii Is the New US Console Leader

stoolpigeon writes with this snippet from an AFP story carried by Google: "Nintendo said Thursday that its globally popular Wii has become the top-selling video game console in the United States, a crown coveted by rivals Microsoft and Sony. Market-tracking firm NPD Group reports that 666,000 Wii consoles were sold in the United States in June, raising the total sales count in the country to nearly 10.9 million units." I'd rather play board games than video games, but the Wii Fit makes one of these tempting anyhow.

Comments

So long, "hardware gamers"

[Yvan256]

This, combined with the popularity of the Nintendo DS, should be proof enough that normal people want to play games, not brag about their system's capabilities.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[MindlessAutomata]

The problem is, the DS has -plenty- of quality games, whereas the Wii seems to be utterly lacking. Even the N64, it seems to me, had more quality games I could buy instead of typical platformers based on shitty kids movies or something. With the Wii I'm extremely underwhelmed. It's just collecting dust at the moment.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[Rogerborg]

I'm not sure why you bought it then, since it was pretty clear that it wouldn't be carrying the same range of sequels and franchises as the PS3/XBox 360.

I guess it depends how fast you want to spend money, and how much time you've got to grind through games. After a hard day's work, sometimes Wii Sports is really all I can manage. My son and I enjoy puzzling through Zack and Wiki, the missus grudgingly admits to liking Lego Star Wars, and when they've gone to bed, I can bust out Resident Evil 4.

I think it's probably fair to compare the Wii's sales to most of the sum total of PS3 and XBox if we want to know how many casual vs hard core gamers there are. So it's not really true that "most people" enjoy casual gaming. At most, it's pushing 40%.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[Constantine XVI]

Just read any review of Rock Band for the Wii. Pretty much every reviewer says it is a crippled, inferior version of the game due to the fact that the developers chose to do a lazy port of the PS2 version instead of even trying to port the PS360 version

There, fixed that for you.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[Yeef]

There's also the fact that a lot of companies dismissed the Wii at first, because it's a lot less powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3.

While that was certainly true for the first six months or so that the wii was out, that's hardly the problem now. A lot of companies are making games for Wii and simply not doing well (with a few exceptions). Simply put, the third parties can't figure out what Wii owners 'want.' Some people even believe that all Wii owners want is "games from Nintendo" and little else.

It's not like they're obligated to use the Wii-mote/nunchuck for the games, they could make "classic controller required" games.

From a business standpoint, I can see how that might make sense, but there are other factors involved. The Wii is old tech. The only thing that separates it from the other consoles is its peripherals. If you're not going to take advantage of them then working on a Wii title isn't going to feel very rewarding. Especially when you see what all your friends are doing with the HD systems. I mean, this is all conjecture, admittedly, but I'd imagine that the type of people who'd want to work in the gaming industry to begin with are naturally more into 'hardcore' games. They're not the target demographic of the Wii. It'd be like asking a director who loves action movies to do a romantic comedy. They'll do it grudgingly and turn out a rushed product that they'll be all too happy to be finished with. I don't have any experience in the industry, but my understanding is that similar positions outside of the gaming industry tend to have better pay and hours, which leads me to believe that those who do work in gaming are probably very enthusiastic about what they do. So how do you convince someone who'd rather be working on the next Gears of War to make something on the Wii? To work within the limitations of old tech (after all, these people have likely worked on the gamecube and PS2 for quite some time) on a game that they themselves have little interest in? If their heart isn't in it then it will show through in the final product. So ultimately, the people that would be best to develop for the Wii would be those that are the most interested in it's peripherals. But even then, there have been a lot of third party games that have been released for the Wii and gotten universal acclaim for their use of the wiimote and still tanked when it came to sales. In short, I think to most publishers, the Wii is just a big mystery that they have yet to figure out.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[Yvan256]

You make good points, however the same arguments don't work if we replace Nintendo Wii with Nintendo DS. How are these people able to code good games on an even less powerful platform? Sure there is a few 2D games, but there's also a lot of 3D games on the DS, so I don't think that's the determining factor.

I also doubt that most people get the pleasure on working on games they like. Seeing what comes out of EA, I would even presume that very few people work on "good games" (whatever these people like).

And last, as a programmer myself, I think there is more challenge to work around the limitations of a system than to simply push it to its limits. I've seen popular games on the Xbox 360 and PS3, and seeing slowdowns makes me question wether the programmers even understand what gameplay is all about. I'd rather see a good-lucking game run at a constant 30 frames per second then an incredibly-looking game that keeps dropping to 15-20 fps half the time.

If anyone is working in the field, it's quite simple: Wii owners want to play games, not look at amazing interactive slideshows. Apply graphics to the game, don't try to apply a game to your graphics routines.

Re:So long, "hardware gamers"

[Dorceon]

The PS2 is far more similar to the Will than the 360.

PS2: 300MHz MIPS CPU with no L2 cache plus vector units; 32M RAM; transform unit has reprogrammable microcode; no single pass multitexturing support; fixed function texturing and lighting.
Wii: 729MHz PowerPC with 256K L2 cache and SIMD extensions; 88M RAM; fixed function transform unit; up to 8 textures per pass (1 texture per clock) with programmable blending.
So yeah, completely dissimilar.

But the games!

[MindlessAutomata]

I'm not trying to troll, not at all--I own a Wii and no other current-generation consoles.

But where's the games! The Wii has so much potential, with its unique controller, and yet, I find so few games interested in playing.

I don't care about top-notch graphics. If I want that, I'll play my PC. What I do want are actual quality games instead of more shovelware. Where are they?

I wonder how many of these sales are due to people playing Wii Sports alone? I'm rather underwhelmed at the Wii's selection...

Oh, andoOnline gaming especially is important to me, and they really dropped the ball on Super Smash Bros. Brawl--the online is terrible, something reminiscent of 56k gaming, almost, just with better graphics. I haven't played the Wii's iteration of Mario Kart, which I probably should rent, but I have a feeling it's not much better (although, feel free to enlighten me on this).

Re:But the games!

[Toonol]

If online gaming is essential to you then that's why you don't see any games worth playing. There's no question that the Wii needs to pick up the game in the online arena to attract that crowd...

Ok, you just clarified a thought for me. I've been a bit perplexed at the criticisms of the Wii's line up. I mean, compare it to the PS3!

But there are niches in gaming, and one niche is the FPS online multiplayer deathmatch genre. I think that group barely considers something outside of that genre as an actual game. So in their minds, the comparison is: "My 360 has Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, so on, and the Wii has what, Metroid and Red Steel? What a terrible lineup."

And if the 360 or PS3 has more games that interest them, then good for them. They just need to realize that not every gamer, not even every hard-core gamer, feels the same way.

Re:But the games!

[AmberBlackCat]

Well that may be, but mario kart as a series has sucked for a long time, it's designed so that no matter how bad you are you can still compete. This is done by making there be 'catch up' for slower racers and of course, the INSANE items that kill the entire track. Don't bother. Play old games and PC games instead.

Some people might say they made a game a bunch of people can play together, regardless of skill level.

Re:more numbers

[Caboosian]

The June sales for the PS3 are likely due to the release of MGS4, and the MGS4/PS3 bundle. A similar effect occurred after Halo 3's release (with regards to the 360).

Mutually exclusive?

[HalAtWork]

I'd rather play board games than video games, but the Wii Fit makes one of these tempting anyhow.

Since when are these things mutually exclusive? You can have both, play both, and enjoy both. There are even video games based on board games and board games based on video games. Computer solitaire is popular because there are many options and rulesets that expand the games for veteran players; and for casual players, you don't have to find your deck of cards or shuffle them or pick them up, it's pretty much all automatic. You can even minimize the window and walk away a lot more easily and effectively than asking everyone to mind those cards on the table. Online board games let you find a partner right away, which allows you more opportunities to enjoy your favorite games. When board games start coming out on paper that uses electronic ink, the distinction between video games and board games will pretty much disappear.

Re:And?

[Khaed]

Nintendo is brilliant for turning their backs on the gamers that supported them for decades and designing games for grandma.

They owe no loyalty to anyone. They're a company and they exist to make money. As it stands, they're doing that. Also, I'd say it's not really that they've turned their backs -- the games aren't much different from the goofy stuff from the N64 or GC days. They just lost a lot of third party support after the GC took such a beating by the PS2, and haven't regained that. Their inhouse games -- Mario, Zelda, Metroid -- are still good. (Actually, I liked this generation Zelda *more* than I liked any since the SNES.)

They're also brilliant for releasing a "next gen" console with last gen hardware specs for 250.

Yeah, how *dare* they not be just like their competitors and offer something different and affordable.

And it works great because grandma and grandpa have no clue about how graphics or processing power can improve their gaming experience.

Yeah because games *sucked* until this generation. Just out of curiosity -- how old are you? Anyone who has been a Nintendo fan "for decades" remembers 8-bit shit graphics.

Means they make raw profit on every machine sold

They don't have a choice. They're not part of a massive conglomerate that can subsidize their gaming unit until it comes out of the red -- they have to make money on hardware sales.

Hell, even of the more regular gamers I know, they have wii's for two games only. Mario and Smash.

Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart? Basically the other three in the five series' that have been Nintendo staples (and some of the only games worth playing that were exclusive to Nintendo) since the N64 days? (Okay, so no Metroid then... but the other four, yes.)

So, for third party developers, it's still better to make titles for a PS3 or 360.

Yeah, ignoring the leader by miles -- great strategy. They should make PSP games, too, and not DS games -- right? So what if it wins?

The reason the Wii isn't doing well with third party? They lost a lot of support over the previous two generations -- their fault, given the way they behaved toward developers in the past -- and nobody had anything big planned for the Wii. Then it took off and developers are either pushing out crap or working on something decent, or quietly praying the other two catch up.

Re:Sue the maker for anti-competitive practices

[jim.hansson]

free market

I am so sick and tired of hearing that as if it was supposed to be the solution to all problems. first Nintendo has "ramped up" production more than you could demand of them, getting the whole supply chain to "ramp up" production is not easy. Second the free market is handling the demand, becuse of free market you can find them on ebay for twice as much. And in america there may be a shortage becuse of the dollar's low value but nothing is stopping you from importing from EU.

Re:Sue the maker for anti-competitive practices

[hardburn]

One of the underlieing assumptions of the Invisible Hand is that a rise in price will immediately bring production up to a new equilibrium. Of course, this is really an abstraction that makes the thought experiment work; in the real world, Nintendo can't immediately increase production to meet increased demand, because it takes time to build new manufacturing facilities. It's also not worthwhile to invest in new facilities to serve a short-term spike. Big investments like that have to pay off for the long haul. Since it was expected that the Wii would start making demand last spring, it wasn't worth too much effort to increase manufacturing rates. (I suspect WiiFit created a new demand spike which threw off that prediction.)

So if they can't meet demand, the Invisible Hand says they should increase the cost. This pads their profit margin, allowing them to reinvest into building facilities to build more Wiis, and then sell later at a cheaper price when manufacturing ramps up. This is also the best strategy for retailers (even if they were a monopoly), since it pads their margins just as much. So why hasn't this happened?

Nintendo has a long term need to maintain its brand image. If it sold the Wii at $300 or more (which is where the eBay price suggests the equilibrium price is at), it would be competing around the same price point as the XBox 360. Since the Wii is (let's face it) less powerful than the 360, many would perceive this as evil price gouging. At launch, the 360 was already considered too expensive (though many considered it cheep when the PS3's price was announced). Brand perception may be more important than a short term profit increase.

Re:Sue the maker for anti-competitive practices

[pokerdad]

I can't tell if you are joking or are serious, but since there are people who actually think the way you do, I will respond to your points for their sake and hope you aren't too offended if this was just sarcasm.

What I wonder is why the free market isn't able to meet Wii console demand. Under the normal conditions the price would rise to reduce the demand until there are some units sitting on the shelves because they are too expensive, after which the manufacturer would increase the supply and lower the prices while still keeping supply-demand in equillibrium.

There are numerous examples of products throughout the years that were both cheap and sold out. The reason the companys making them didn't raise the prices as you descibe is because this would create ill will with their customer base and likely cost them in the long run. This isn't to say however that the free market doesn't respond as you describe its just not Nintendo or the retailers who have binding agreements with Nintendo that are letting the market find the price - its places like ebay; anyone who wants a wii could have one immediately if they are willing to pay the current going rate on auction sites.

Since none of this is happening, I suspect the monopolist manufacturer manipulates the prices and supply such that there is an artificial shortage

While Nintendo has a "monopoly" on manufacturing wii's, its makes as much sense to call it a monopoly as it would to call Apple a monopoly for being the only one making Macs; they both are products in a larger marketplace, and customers have plenty of other choices.

either to 1) undercut the competitors by keeping the prices too low,

All evidence is that Nintendo is the only game manufacturer unwilling to sell hardware at a loss. This is completely contradictory to your statement. Further it is not illegal or unethical to sell a product that everyone knows has cheaper components (than its competitors) for a cheaper price.

2) to generate hype by the perceived scarcity of the resource: "hey, if these consoles are so popular I gotta get me some" (which counts as false advertizing)

While its not impossible that Nintendo has done this, don't you think its a bit idiotic to accuse Nintendo of purposefully creating shortages in a discussion that began with the title "Wii is the New US Console Leader". (doubly so when that now make the wii the leader in every region)

Monopolists need to be fined or broken up!

Sure, but what does that have to do with Nintendo?

The Wii has outsold everyone...

[lord_mike]

...and yet, third party developers insist that all Wii owners are 4 year old girls, so they shove games like "Party Chef" down our throats and then complain when no one buys that garbage. Just look at what Electronic Arts has done with their "All Play" series. NCAA football 09 is an absolute abomination with no online play, phony stadiums, and graphics so bad, they make the PS2 version look like the 360! Tecmo Bowl has more advanced gameplay!

Software developers just don't get it... they don't get what casual gaming is about... it's not about kiddie games... it's about games that you don't need to spend weeks of your life playing to get anywhere... that doesn't mean that the games should be lame... quite the opposite, since we play less often, we want our games to be more meaningful and rewarding.

Nintendo gets it... that's why their games sell... everyone else? Not so much!

Re:And?

[Nick Barnes]

Nintendo is brilliant for turning their backs on the gamers that supported them for decades and designing games for grandma

I'm one of the gamers that supported Nintendo for decades. Guess what? I don't have time to play hardcore games. I don't have an XBox or a 360, don't have a PS3 or a PS2. But I love an hour or two of Mario Kart or Wii Play or Boom Blox with my kids.

And in fact, the game that's had most play in my house this weekend has been Goldeneye, on our N64.

So have Nintendo turned their backs on me? Um, no. They've worked out a way to create and sell new games to me. Have they stolen back from a losing position in the last console generation, to eat Sony's and Microsoft's lunches, by redefining console gaming and finding a new and much larger group of gamers? Yes, in fact. Are you a sad loser who can't deal with the fact that Nintendo have revolutionized gaming by opening it up to this new group, people who would never have bought a console before the Wii? Well, it kind of looks that way.

Re:The question is, how long can they keep it up?

[maglor_83]

After the poor show at E3, I'm starting to doubt whether Nintendo can hold on to its lead for much longer.

Nintendo's E3 was pretty poor, but Sony and Microsoft's weren't phenomenal either.

They like to think that it's the casual games selling Wiis, but the AAA titles are what the hardcore gamers want - and it's the hardcore gamers who'll decide the outcome of the console wars.

You can keep telling yourself that. Microsoft know better. How many new casual games did they announce at E3? Singstar, Buzz AND Eyetoy clones I believe they were. They still need to reduce the price before there is any significant casual adoption however.