The interesting thing is Japan. I think your analysis is spot-on for the West, but PS3 oldsold the 360 in Japan on its first day despite very limited supply. The 360 isn't really a competitor there, so Japanese enthusiasm for the system should prevent a real death spiral. The Wii isn't really a factor in this, since FF (which is scarily huge in Japan) and MGS might go to the 360 but are unlikely to go to the Wii.
Why couldn't final fantasy and Metal Gear go to the Wii?
The Playstation, PS2 and Nintendo DS are all the least powerful systems of their generation and all recieved the final fantasy games; in fact it is the system that sells well in Japan that gets Final Fantasy games, not the other way around. It was always assumed that the PSP was going to get all Final Fantasy game until Animal Crossing / Brain Training / Nintendogs (and the release of the DS Lite) caused the Nintendo DS to grow at an unprecidented rate that force square to focus on the DS.
As a hypothetical argument, if when the Wii is released on November 2nd in Japan it sells like crazy until E3 I'm willing to bet that Square would announce that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games were under development for the Wii (maybe not Final Fantasy 13). The fact is that Square/Enix and Konami love money, not Sony.
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).
The same thing could have been said about Sony both currently and when they decided to enter the videogame market; they weren't successful because they targeted different consumers (it had a reasonably slow start), but were successful because the Saturn was a disaster and the N64 was released 18 months after the Playstation.
Given that the price isn't even doubling for consoles being resold on eBay, it would appear that the supply is very close to the demand
I could be wrong but I suspect that this is probably more related to people being optimistic that they will be able to get one before Christmas; at 250k per week most people are betting that the Wii will start staying on shelves for more than a couple of hours in a week or two.
From what I gather most people do not believe that Sony is supplying many units and are highly doubtful that there will be an opportunity before christmas to buy a PS3; if they have the means and "need" a PS3 for Christmas they are probably going to buy it from a eBay horder regardless of the cost.
The Wii may be twice as powerful as the previous Gamecube, but the Gamecube wasn't a powerhouse to begin with.
The Gamecube was much more powerful than the PS2 (at least twice as powerful as the PS2); the Wii being at least twice as powerful as the Gamecube would be dramatically more powerful than the PS2. Developers have said that the PS2 will be a viable platform at least until 2009/2010 so wouldn't this mean that the Wii was powerful enough for it's intended life (5 to 6 years -> 2011/2012)?
Just as a though, if graphical improvements are so important for the advancement of videogames what happens in 10 years when the PS5 (or whatever) is released and graphics have hit a point where there it is not possible to continue to improve them?
Wouldn't the industry die?
If they are not that important couldn't it be argued that they serve a functional role and advancement beyond what is necessary to serve that need is mostly pointless?
Now I'm not saying whether or not we've past this point, but I would say that (as has been proven many times with handhelds) as long as a system provides fun games most people are willing to buy the system even if it is (absolutely) outclassed by its competition.
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?
If it is too small to get licenced by Sony then how does it show up on the PS3 in a form that is not playable on a PC? Either it would be a web-based game, or a linux game (probably java based) both of which would be easily available on a PC...
Gee, let me make a wild guess that you don't sit around in the PS3 articles posting about how the $499 PS3 is only a few dollars more a year compared to the $399 which is a great deal since you get so much more for those few dollars every month...
No... mainly because the PS3 XBox 360 are products which (in my opinion) are both overpriced; even if I considered them to be reasonably priced I would still say that your comparison is flawed because a per month charge only makes sense if you're talking about a service.
XBox Live is a service which you have the choice of paying for and can quit the service at any time; certainly you get charged in chunks but what you're paying for is something which only has value over time.
I don't think many people understand how product popularity can not be controlled all that well and tends to snowball (in both directions). In videogames there are two important factors:
The system with the most good game sells more units
The system that sells more units gets the most good games
A small change early on in a systems life (Product Shortage, Higher Price, Stronger Competition) will have an effect on how well that system sells early on. Even a reasonably small effect on early sales have a dramatic impact on the number of games (in particular the number of exclusive games). As gamers see less games produced for a system (and that many of the best games are cross platform) sales are dramatically reduced. After a while the system sells a fraction of its potential...
Essentially, I agree with you that there is no reason to assume that any console manufacturer will be able to capture more than 10% of their existing market share.
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...
Microsoft better get a fucking clue. 50 dollars a year just for the privilege of playing games online? I don't think so. That adds up to 250 dollars over five years
I'm no Microsoft fan but $50 per year works out to about $4.75 per month, if you compare that to a single game that Millions of people pay to play (WoW) I don't think that is too much to charge. I think that it all comes down to what services they're offering for the money; something as simple as having a uniform interface with the same services offered is worth a lot of money for some people.
Actually, as someone else has mentioned, Nintendo has indicated that the console will be around for 5 to 6 years... If Nintendo is successful with the Wii though they will have proven that you don't need bleeding edge (graphical) technology to have a successful console and games and thus will be able to release a system that is a few times as powerful as the PS3, which is easy to develop for, and is inexpensive and developers will have the choice as to whether they want to take advantage of the graphical abilities.
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.
I would agree with you (and I still sort of do) but if graphics really mattered all that much the PS2 would have been owned by either the Gamecube or the XBox; and PS2 sales would have disapeared when the XBox 360 was released. The reality is that on modern systems graphics are mostly a functional consern and if the graphics are good enough to represent the world that is necessary for the game most consumers are happy; you wont see the average consumer reaching for a tissue when they watch a game trailer in HD.
There is no doubt that the PS3/XBox 360 have a graphical advantage, but if most games continue to (for the most part) produce photorealistic versions of the exact same environment the Wii can produce the Wii will not have too much to worry about; if they tone down the graphics and produce larger more interactive environments the Wii may have serious trouble (but I don't see too much of that happening).
I have tried it, so I honestly don't if tilt controllers are something to build a console around.
The question I would have for this is how much time did you try it for, what games did you play and did you keep an open mind?
But is this new game play interaction something that can keep the wii going in the longterm?
The Wiimote (and Nunchuck) are no where near perfect implementations of the technology and yet they're far better than any controller I have used. When you play most conventional games (FPS, Racing Games) the Wiimote (and Nunchuck) is actually almost as good as the best interfaces for these games (Keyboard & Mouse, Steering Wheel) and in many games it is actually superior (Adventure games). The beauty of the Wiimote is that it allows for (nearly) endless usage options and a good designer can make a highly useable and intuitive interface.
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 have a PC, why do I need another one that doesn't have the functionality and expandability of my existing PC?
There is an unfortunate set of problems that plague studies done in the social sciences that show up quite often in reports like this; in my opinion because there is little effort done to discredit people based on flawed methodology or conclusions in these fields.
The main problem I always see is that even if the study can prove a link between two things "those who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control." they can not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. In this study in particular how do they know that people who are easily emotionally aroused aren't drawn to violent videogames? How do they know that people who have difficulty governing self-control are not likely to participate in an activity they enjoy in excess?
They don't...
The fact is that if you kept hearing "Jane from Craptastic University was recently discredited by making an unsupported conclusions in her more recent study 'violent videogames cause baby eating'" on the news or in the journals which publish these studies.
Ever since the launch dates were announced Nintendo has stuck to the "4 million Wii units worldwide by the end of the year." quote and recently said "2 Million Wii units in North America by the end of the year". The unfortunate thing was a lot of the mainstream media reported this as "2 Million Wii units in The United States at launch".
Ultimately, if Nintendo is shipping the rumored 250,000 units/week until the end of the year they will have shipped their launch shipment (as a guess 500,000/600,000 units) plus an additional 1.5 Million units and could (easily) make their target.
People are spoonfed by the media to believe what the media wants them to belileve...
If you argue that evidence of Global Warming only proves a short term warming trend and that it is inconclusive whether it is influence by man or if it represents a long term climate change people will call you delusional even though you are correct...
I know you're not to believe analysts, but earlier this week they were reporting that the Wii had 4 times as many units and that the PS3 launched with between 125,000 and 175,000 units...
Until NPD releases its November numbers or Sony makes an announcement I think those are about as accurate as we're going to get.
Mortal Kombat Street Fighter Super Mario Bros. Wing Commander Tomb Raider Doom Silent Hill Blood Rayne House of the Dead
who wouldn't think of making videogame movies; after all its like a licence to print money and all of the games still retain their appeal in the marketplace.
Seriously, if the Halo movie is made I would bet that every Halo game after it is released has awful sales. Videogame movies tend to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to get $20 for the meat off of the carcus. I honestly can't believe that anyone with any business sense would allow their videogame licence to be made into a movie.
There is something that's worse than the MPAA regulating home theaters. And that's Slashdot posting a link to an obvious satire piece and a great many of its readers (and possibly a certain editor) not having the intelligence to realize that its satire.
Is it not having the intelligence to realise that it is satire or that many people wouldn't be too surprised to see the MPAA actually trying to do something like this? After all when I heard that the RIAA was suing a dead grandmother ( http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased _Grandmother/1107532260 ) I thought it was a joke...
FYI, the entire reason World of Warcraft is so insanely successful is because they do not pander to the hardcore minority. From its simplified gameplay to the fastest leveling time of any MMO ever released, WoW is the most casual-friendly MMO ever released.
True enough... WoW was far less punishing than DAoC or Everquest...
But (as a guess) anyone who was paying close enough attention to WoW before its release to know this would probably be pretty hard-core.
The Xavix, http://www.xavix.com/ [xavix.com] has been around for a few years now and over the past year, with all the discussion of the Wii, I have yet to see a single person mention the system. The system works quite well, and doesn't require the calibration the Wii does.
You're correct in saying the Xavix doesn't get the attention the Wii does because the Wii is developed by Nintendo, but the reason for that is different than you would think. Nintendo will bring attention to the Wii because you know that for the next 5 years games will be developed for the Wii and there will be at least 250 different games made for the Wii in its lifetime; the Xavix will be lucky to get 25 games in its lifetime, none of which will be as good as Zelda. Another way to put it is that Nintendo will be able to make the Wii perform as close to its potential as possible, the Xavix is a cool toy that will never reach its potential.
Most publishers will continue to make games in a series as long as they break even in an attempt to build a brand which may become profitable in the long run. In the previous generation many games were in the $5 Million to $10 Million to develop range and as a result required about 250,000 to 500,000 copies to break even. Nintendo has an advantage by being a first party publisher which enables them to make greater revinues per title, and they're know to keep development costs lower (partially by reusing content between games) so they can break even on much smaller sales.
One thing that should be interesting to see is how publishers are going to react in the upcomming generation when they could require 1 Million sales in order to break even on a game; will more games become multi-platform, will they reduce risks, or will they step away from attempting to push the systems to their graphical limits?
You could stop the grind (and to a certain extent farming) but I'm certain that the 10% of super hard-core players would revolt...
Suppose you added the states of Tired and Exhausted to the XP and Honor gain systems in World of Warcraft which limited the XP/Honor a person would gain performing an activity and (in the case of Exhausted) act like Rez sickness when fighting that type of opponent; in essence producing a per/day fight limit on a player like the type that used to exist in games like Lord. If the cap was set high enough to not impact most players (say you had enough fights for 2 to 4 hours of a particular activity before becomming tired, and a couple of hours after that before becomming exhausted) most players would be happy with the system; the problem would be the endless complaints from the hardcore.
Slashdot Mirror
The interesting thing is Japan. I think your analysis is spot-on for the West, but PS3 oldsold the 360 in Japan on its first day despite very limited supply. The 360 isn't really a competitor there, so Japanese enthusiasm for the system should prevent a real death spiral. The Wii isn't really a factor in this, since FF (which is scarily huge in Japan) and MGS might go to the 360 but are unlikely to go to the Wii.
Why couldn't final fantasy and Metal Gear go to the Wii?
The Playstation, PS2 and Nintendo DS are all the least powerful systems of their generation and all recieved the final fantasy games; in fact it is the system that sells well in Japan that gets Final Fantasy games, not the other way around. It was always assumed that the PSP was going to get all Final Fantasy game until Animal Crossing / Brain Training / Nintendogs (and the release of the DS Lite) caused the Nintendo DS to grow at an unprecidented rate that force square to focus on the DS.
As a hypothetical argument, if when the Wii is released on November 2nd in Japan it sells like crazy until E3 I'm willing to bet that Square would announce that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games were under development for the Wii (maybe not Final Fantasy 13). The fact is that Square/Enix and Konami love money, not Sony.
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).
The same thing could have been said about Sony both currently and when they decided to enter the videogame market; they weren't successful because they targeted different consumers (it had a reasonably slow start), but were successful because the Saturn was a disaster and the N64 was released 18 months after the Playstation.
Given that the price isn't even doubling for consoles being resold on eBay, it would appear that the supply is very close to the demand
I could be wrong but I suspect that this is probably more related to people being optimistic that they will be able to get one before Christmas; at 250k per week most people are betting that the Wii will start staying on shelves for more than a couple of hours in a week or two.
From what I gather most people do not believe that Sony is supplying many units and are highly doubtful that there will be an opportunity before christmas to buy a PS3; if they have the means and "need" a PS3 for Christmas they are probably going to buy it from a eBay horder regardless of the cost.
The Wii may be twice as powerful as the previous Gamecube, but the Gamecube wasn't a powerhouse to begin with.
The Gamecube was much more powerful than the PS2 (at least twice as powerful as the PS2); the Wii being at least twice as powerful as the Gamecube would be dramatically more powerful than the PS2. Developers have said that the PS2 will be a viable platform at least until 2009/2010 so wouldn't this mean that the Wii was powerful enough for it's intended life (5 to 6 years -> 2011/2012)?
Just as a though, if graphical improvements are so important for the advancement of videogames what happens in 10 years when the PS5 (or whatever) is released and graphics have hit a point where there it is not possible to continue to improve them?
Wouldn't the industry die?
If they are not that important couldn't it be argued that they serve a functional role and advancement beyond what is necessary to serve that need is mostly pointless?
Now I'm not saying whether or not we've past this point, but I would say that (as has been proven many times with handhelds) as long as a system provides fun games most people are willing to buy the system even if it is (absolutely) outclassed by its competition.
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?
...
If it is too small to get licenced by Sony then how does it show up on the PS3 in a form that is not playable on a PC? Either it would be a web-based game, or a linux game (probably java based) both of which would be easily available on a PC
Gee, let me make a wild guess that you don't sit around in the PS3 articles posting about how the $499 PS3 is only a few dollars more a year compared to the $399 which is a great deal since you get so much more for those few dollars every month...
... mainly because the PS3 XBox 360 are products which (in my opinion) are both overpriced; even if I considered them to be reasonably priced I would still say that your comparison is flawed because a per month charge only makes sense if you're talking about a service.
No
XBox Live is a service which you have the choice of paying for and can quit the service at any time; certainly you get charged in chunks but what you're paying for is something which only has value over time.
A small change early on in a systems life (Product Shortage, Higher Price, Stronger Competition) will have an effect on how well that system sells early on. Even a reasonably small effect on early sales have a dramatic impact on the number of games (in particular the number of exclusive games). As gamers see less games produced for a system (and that many of the best games are cross platform) sales are dramatically reduced. After a while the system sells a fraction of its potential
Essentially, I agree with you that there is no reason to assume that any console manufacturer will be able to capture more than 10% of their existing market share.
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
Microsoft better get a fucking clue. 50 dollars a year just for the privilege of playing games online? I don't think so. That adds up to 250 dollars over five years
I'm no Microsoft fan but $50 per year works out to about $4.75 per month, if you compare that to a single game that Millions of people pay to play (WoW) I don't think that is too much to charge. I think that it all comes down to what services they're offering for the money; something as simple as having a uniform interface with the same services offered is worth a lot of money for some people.
Actually, as someone else has mentioned, Nintendo has indicated that the console will be around for 5 to 6 years ... If Nintendo is successful with the Wii though they will have proven that you don't need bleeding edge (graphical) technology to have a successful console and games and thus will be able to release a system that is a few times as powerful as the PS3, which is easy to develop for, and is inexpensive and developers will have the choice as to whether they want to take advantage of the graphical abilities.
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.
I would agree with you (and I still sort of do) but if graphics really mattered all that much the PS2 would have been owned by either the Gamecube or the XBox; and PS2 sales would have disapeared when the XBox 360 was released. The reality is that on modern systems graphics are mostly a functional consern and if the graphics are good enough to represent the world that is necessary for the game most consumers are happy; you wont see the average consumer reaching for a tissue when they watch a game trailer in HD.
There is no doubt that the PS3/XBox 360 have a graphical advantage, but if most games continue to (for the most part) produce photorealistic versions of the exact same environment the Wii can produce the Wii will not have too much to worry about; if they tone down the graphics and produce larger more interactive environments the Wii may have serious trouble (but I don't see too much of that happening).
I have tried it, so I honestly don't if tilt controllers are something to build a console around.
The question I would have for this is how much time did you try it for, what games did you play and did you keep an open mind?
But is this new game play interaction something that can keep the wii going in the longterm?
The Wiimote (and Nunchuck) are no where near perfect implementations of the technology and yet they're far better than any controller I have used. When you play most conventional games (FPS, Racing Games) the Wiimote (and Nunchuck) is actually almost as good as the best interfaces for these games (Keyboard & Mouse, Steering Wheel) and in many games it is actually superior (Adventure games). The beauty of the Wiimote is that it allows for (nearly) endless usage options and a good designer can make a highly useable and intuitive interface.
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 have a PC, why do I need another one that doesn't have the functionality and expandability of my existing PC?
There is an unfortunate set of problems that plague studies done in the social sciences that show up quite often in reports like this; in my opinion because there is little effort done to discredit people based on flawed methodology or conclusions in these fields.
...
The main problem I always see is that even if the study can prove a link between two things "those who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control." they can not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. In this study in particular how do they know that people who are easily emotionally aroused aren't drawn to violent videogames? How do they know that people who have difficulty governing self-control are not likely to participate in an activity they enjoy in excess?
They don't
The fact is that if you kept hearing "Jane from Craptastic University was recently discredited by making an unsupported conclusions in her more recent study 'violent videogames cause baby eating'" on the news or in the journals which publish these studies.
Just as a correction ...
September 13, 2006
Nintendo said it plans to ship 4 million Wii units worldwide by the end of the year.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/732/732669p1.html
Ever since the launch dates were announced Nintendo has stuck to the "4 million Wii units worldwide by the end of the year." quote and recently said "2 Million Wii units in North America by the end of the year". The unfortunate thing was a lot of the mainstream media reported this as "2 Million Wii units in The United States at launch".
Ultimately, if Nintendo is shipping the rumored 250,000 units/week until the end of the year they will have shipped their launch shipment (as a guess 500,000/600,000 units) plus an additional 1.5 Million units and could (easily) make their target.
People are spoonfed by the media to believe what the media wants them to belileve ...
...
If you argue that evidence of Global Warming only proves a short term warming trend and that it is inconclusive whether it is influence by man or if it represents a long term climate change people will call you delusional even though you are correct
WoW ... Anonymous Coward Sony Fanboy Troll do you ever give up?
You end up posting similar messages on every thread that mentions the Wii or PS3 yet you never post any link to a source for your information.
I know you're not to believe analysts, but earlier this week they were reporting that the Wii had 4 times as many units and that the PS3 launched with between 125,000 and 175,000 units ...
Until NPD releases its November numbers or Sony makes an announcement I think those are about as accurate as we're going to get.
With such Classics as:
Mortal Kombat
Street Fighter
Super Mario Bros.
Wing Commander
Tomb Raider
Doom
Silent Hill
Blood Rayne
House of the Dead
who wouldn't think of making videogame movies; after all its like a licence to print money and all of the games still retain their appeal in the marketplace.
Seriously, if the Halo movie is made I would bet that every Halo game after it is released has awful sales. Videogame movies tend to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to get $20 for the meat off of the carcus. I honestly can't believe that anyone with any business sense would allow their videogame licence to be made into a movie.
There is something that's worse than the MPAA regulating home theaters. And that's Slashdot posting a link to an obvious satire piece and a great many of its readers (and possibly a certain editor) not having the intelligence to realize that its satire.
d _Grandmother/1107532260 ) I thought it was a joke ...
Is it not having the intelligence to realise that it is satire or that many people wouldn't be too surprised to see the MPAA actually trying to do something like this? After all when I heard that the RIAA was suing a dead grandmother ( http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Decease
FYI, the entire reason World of Warcraft is so insanely successful is because they do not pander to the hardcore minority. From its simplified gameplay to the fastest leveling time of any MMO ever released, WoW is the most casual-friendly MMO ever released.
... WoW was far less punishing than DAoC or Everquest ...
True enough
But (as a guess) anyone who was paying close enough attention to WoW before its release to know this would probably be pretty hard-core.
The Xavix, http://www.xavix.com/ [xavix.com] has been around for a few years now and over the past year, with all the discussion of the Wii, I have yet to see a single person mention the system. The system works quite well, and doesn't require the calibration the Wii does.
You're correct in saying the Xavix doesn't get the attention the Wii does because the Wii is developed by Nintendo, but the reason for that is different than you would think. Nintendo will bring attention to the Wii because you know that for the next 5 years games will be developed for the Wii and there will be at least 250 different games made for the Wii in its lifetime; the Xavix will be lucky to get 25 games in its lifetime, none of which will be as good as Zelda. Another way to put it is that Nintendo will be able to make the Wii perform as close to its potential as possible, the Xavix is a cool toy that will never reach its potential.
Do you know whether the outrage was from the more hardcore players or from the average masses?
Most publishers will continue to make games in a series as long as they break even in an attempt to build a brand which may become profitable in the long run. In the previous generation many games were in the $5 Million to $10 Million to develop range and as a result required about 250,000 to 500,000 copies to break even. Nintendo has an advantage by being a first party publisher which enables them to make greater revinues per title, and they're know to keep development costs lower (partially by reusing content between games) so they can break even on much smaller sales.
One thing that should be interesting to see is how publishers are going to react in the upcomming generation when they could require 1 Million sales in order to break even on a game; will more games become multi-platform, will they reduce risks, or will they step away from attempting to push the systems to their graphical limits?
You could stop the grind (and to a certain extent farming) but I'm certain that the 10% of super hard-core players would revolt ...
Suppose you added the states of Tired and Exhausted to the XP and Honor gain systems in World of Warcraft which limited the XP/Honor a person would gain performing an activity and (in the case of Exhausted) act like Rez sickness when fighting that type of opponent; in essence producing a per/day fight limit on a player like the type that used to exist in games like Lord. If the cap was set high enough to not impact most players (say you had enough fights for 2 to 4 hours of a particular activity before becomming tired, and a couple of hours after that before becomming exhausted) most players would be happy with the system; the problem would be the endless complaints from the hardcore.