So, it's an "outright lie" because you imagine it to be so? You probably should have stayed in school and perhaps taken "Marketing 102" where you might have learned that it's a really bad idea to piss off consumers by advertising a product that can't be purchased.
It's hardly a surprise that IBM isn't getting solid yields on processors with 3.2-GHz cores (particularly with lower power consumption and lower heat output) considering PowerMacs still haven't made it to 3 GHz - instead having to double up on processors and now on cores - and Apple never felt comfortable going to the G5 in their notebook line.
A modded Xbox will also ignore the Xbox's DVD security features. Somehow, I don't think Microsoft is going to toss out their copy protection/DRM features in order to provide emulation.
So, yes, you're technically correct that it's possible for Microsoft to make the games run from the hard drive. However, the idea that they'd do so is very Lenny.
The games don't look better because they've been "patched" (the word "patch" in this context is about the emulator, like going from MAME 0.5 to MAME 0.6). They look better because they're running on more powerful hardware, just like on PC if you went from an Nvidia Geforce 5200FX to an ATI x800 - nothing changes in the game yet it can still look better.
How would Microsoft manage such a feat of "patching" all these games with new textures and the like anyway? They would have to replace executables (to access textures from the hard drive instead of the DVD - at the minimum), test them and then have the space on the hard drive to hold them. Even more important, it would take more than a few seconds to make it happen over Xbox Live (textures are already big and would be bigger if they were higher resolution).
If nothing else, this gives Sony something to shoot for. Whatever graphical improvements were applied to PS1 games on the PS2 were so tiny that no one cared (I never saw them myself). If Sony can do for PS2 games on the PS3 what Microsoft has done for Xbox games on the 360, it'll be pretty damned cool.
Just a small clarification: NO suit that the RIAA files against an individual is anything but a civil suit. Private individuals and corporations don't get to "sue" criminally. If they want criminal charges, they have to bring a complaint to the appropriate prosecutorial authority (federal/state/local) and that authority will then send anchoose whether or not to file charges.
Some folks get confused because the basis of the RIAA lawsuits is potentially a criminal act (depending on the particular jurisdiction) but the lawsuit itself is entirely a civil matter. The RIAA doesn't get to sue anyone into jail.
I suppose Oblivion is a possibility, but I tend to doubt it. The only reason I can think of for a game to span 36GB of disc space is the [over]use of pre-rendered high-definition "cutscenes" which doesn't seem like a very Elder Scrollsish thing to do.
It is the opinion of the Team BABBSTER that the Team HEXUS needs to a) be a little less impressed with itself and b) find something important to care about. Microsoft and every Xbox Live user finding out that I'm using the options blade, listening to music, playing King Kong or watching a DVD on my 360 isn't at all important, ever. If it is, there's always my favorite "opt-out" option: Yanking the Ethernet cable.
How is anyone going to find out how "different" the store is without advertising? Traditional advertising works. That's why people use it. Trying to target a specific group like LAN gamers or a "gaming community" (a term which holds no meaning at this point) might be a nice idea but it's far more difficult a process than opening the ole checkbook and getting some radio airtime or even getting a local TV spot. Couches and knowledgeable staff, on the other hand, will NEVER bring people in the door who don't know about the place to start with.
I may be guilty of oversimplification but some of the suggestions here demonstrate a naivete that, while charming, isn't at all helpful. At the risk of being accused of being simplistic again, the question was about how to improve the business of a game store - a place to sell games - and not how to create a warm, fuzzy environment where kids can hang out after school and play cool videogames. That seems like a job for Boys & Girls Club, and not one for someone trying to move product.
If you have the space, I suggest putting a couch in with a TV, or a couple of TVs, instead of the regular IDUs. It'll make your stores feel welcoming and people will want to stay.
I'd make this suggestion, too, especially if you want to have a free gaming lounge instead of a videogame store.
Anybody who wants to hang out in a videogame store probably has too much time on their hands and thus doesn't have a job providing the money to spend on videogames. While folks should certainly feel comfortable and confident enough in the retailer to chat and ask questions, I don't think you want people loitering in your store for hours on end in the hopes that you'll make a $15 profit on one used videogame every couple weeks. In fact, I personally avoid such congregations like the plague. If I go by a videogame store where there are a bunch of kids goofing off, I don't stop in. I'm getting cranky in my old (33) age and I don't need the exposure to kids arguing about who gets next on the demo system(s).
The best ways to get a little store going strong are the tried-and-true methods. Traditional advertising for example. Local newspapers (including - perhaps especially - the free weeklies) can give some good value. Depending on your local market radio, and even TV (late-night), advertising might be cheaper than you'd expect. Fliers take a lot of work in distribution but put one out there with a "buy two (or three, maybe even four) used games get one free" deal and folks could turn out nicely.
Gaming community development might be a good deal, too, but in smaller doses than encouraging regular loitering in the store. Sponsoring an Xbox/PC LAN party could get some business going if you can find the right spots to advertise.
As with any business, it's all about getting the people who have the money and the desire to spend it on videogames, into your store. Again, I think attracting loiterers to the store is at best a waste of time, and at worst could slow business even further.
The current administration's benefit-cutting (whatever your political inclinations) also reduces the wiggle room in consumers' pockets.
My "political inclination" would be to say that anyone taking a check from the feds because they need it to put a roof over their head and food on their table ought not to be buying videogames anyway. So, either you offered that as a complete non-sequitir - a "free shot" at the US government - or some people should have their benefits cut.
Your mistake is that you're looking at the price of the CD/DVD/cartridge as if it existed in a bubble instead of as one small piece of the cost puzzle. Developers very quickly started developing more and "better" (increased audio/visual fidelity) content to fill up the CDs and they've continued to do so with DVDs. Doing so costs money - over time becoming more money than the cost difference between a CD/DVD and a cartridge. Imagine, for example, the difference between a game composer writing music and feeding it into a synthesizer for a small-capacity cartridge game versus a composer writing music and then hiring an orchestra for a CD. You could argue that you don't need the fancy music, just as you might argue that games don't need highly-detailed character models and textures. But most people would rather play a gorgeous fun game with great music over a 320x240 sprite-based fun game with bleeps and bloops.
Whatever cost advantage was realized with the advent of the game CD was overtaken within just a couple short years by the cost of developing the content to fill up a CD. In that vein, you might want to thank Microsoft for slowing things down a bit by sticking with DVD considering that games, traditionally, have expanded to fit the storage media. Things will go to an even crazier level if developers feel the need to fill up 18- or 36-GB PS3 Blu-Ray discs.
Vice versa, PC games with their resolutions commonly reaching 1600*1200 the least, often times requiring a hardware upgrade just to reach 60 frames per second, hardware stress-testing graphics should cost $60~$80 by now.
First off, I would note that some big PC games have debuted at about $60. They usually quickly fall to $50 but PC games at $60 would be nothing new. More important to the comparison of price between PC and console is the issue of licensing. Developers/publishers don't have to pay a dime to Microsoft (apart, perhaps, from buying development tools) to release a game for Windows. For console games, a piece of every game sale goes back to Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. Depending on who you ask (I suspect it depends on specific agreements between publishers and console companies, and it's not common public knowledge) publishers are paying $5-10 per unit to the console manufacturer. That's a pretty hefty cut out of potential profits, and it's the biggest reason (besides the desire to increase sales) you see price drops happen for PC games much more quickly than for console games.
And, finally, both the console and PC gaming markets are significantly larger than they were in the past. This, perhaps even more than the change in physical media, is the biggest reason that prices have remained so stable over the years. Assuming the market begins to plateau somewhat it's perfectly reasonable for prices to go up. I'd argue that it's probably long overdue - annoying to me as a gamer but very reasonable in terms of realstic business.
DVI is part of the video chipset, Bluetooth in the Mini is optional and actually does make things more difficult (specifically, it makes changing the DIMM a bit harder), Firewire doesn't take up much space and generates virtually no extra heat (despite the name), AND the 360 has its own wireless system built in.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but considering how [unreasonably] hard they were pounded for the size of the Xbox it's understandable that they wanted to move the power supply outside to save some space - and, again, remove another heat source from inside the box. I might noteas well that the Mac Mini has an external power supply but that would just be over the top.
Personally, I don't understand your problem with an external "brick" [that actually works]. If it means the device actually on display is smaller, that's more important to me than the loss of some unseen, unused floor real estate...
It's not nearly "the same stuff." Faster processor speeds, three cores, far more advanced graphics solution...These are the kinds of things that increase the size of the 360 simply due to the increase in the amount of heat produced. The Mac Mini has one G4 running at 1.25 or 1.42 GHz and a 32MB ATI 9200 graphics solution. In other words, it doesn't have a hope in hell of running advanced games at HD-type resolutions (the Mini would choke at 640x480 in brand-new games).
Don't get me wrong. The Mini is a kick-ass item for - or because of - its size but it's not going to game anywhere close to the 360, or even the iMac (which is also quite small considering the integration with the display) with its G5 and 128MB ATI x600 setup.
However, all his movies are highly dependent on manipulating his viewers' emotions into what he thinks they should feel and rarely do they engage the viewers' intellect.
Virtually all fiction is designed to "manipulate" the viewers' emotions. Otherwise, what's the point? Even good documentaries are edited so that they will entertain (which requires an emotional reaction) as well as inform. If you dislike Jerry Bruckheimer for generally creating fiction with a ham-handed approach to said manipulation, that's cool, but manipulating emotions is what entertainment - smart or dumb - is all about.
The reasoning you describe isn't for buying a PS3 in a year. It's for buying a PS2 right now or, if you have one already, just continuing to play PS2 games - just as that reasoning would mean folks should have been playing PS1 games up until about now. Backwards compatibility is about the dumbest reason I can think of for buying the sequel to a console. The only reason it MIGHT be nice is if Sony steps up and actually makes PS2 games look better on the PS3, but given they didn't do jack for PS1 games played on the PS2 I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath.
Oh yeah, and the Xbox doesn't have a "very small collection" of games. Anyone who buys an Xbox today would have enough games available to play for at least a year or two (assuming some sort of life outside of videogames, of course) without "reruns."
I don't know the exact release date of the Voodoo, but their original 3D acceleration daughter cards were also released in 1996, so you're talking about a maximum potential difference of months. It's also irrelevant since MOST consoles are not bought at launch, so by the the time most people have a videogame console it's already lagging state-of-the-art PC gaming rigs in any case.
Now you're just being silly. No console (well, maybe the Neo-Geo) has ever shipped with - for example - more memory or a faster CPU than a state-of-the-art PC available at the time of console launch. So, the argument is bullshit. The argument is made even more ridiculous because nobody with half a brain is going to be caught deciding between an Xbox 360 and a $2,000 Alienware system based on system specs. They may decide on the PC because of particular games, particular display capabilities and, perhaps most important, general purpose versus gaming only, but not because the Xbox 360 is "remarkable [sic] weak" - an assertion which, again, is stupid on its face given the monstrous price difference.
I know I'm feeding the troll here, but I feel the need to highlight one of the funniest things I've read on Slashdot in months:
"Stick an ATI card in there and you've got a system that is performing around the level of a dual 2.5ghz 970 PowerMac. Which is why you keep hearing first hand impression talk about how 360 games look no better than the games people are playing at home."
So, the quote above, in essence, means that Microsoft is charging $300 (the core system is supposedly going to play at least 99% of 360 games, though I expect HD-requiring games like MMOGs as the 360 goes on) for a gaming experience comparable to that of a $2,000 Power Mac with the actual consistent release of games? The tone says complaint, the content says "OMG the Xbox 360 is a fantastic deal!":)
Well, yes, it did stay afloat (on a sea of Microsoft green). I've certainly enjoyed my Xbox immensely (and will continue to for some time). As a gaming consumer, I couldn't possibly care less whether the thing made a profit for Microsoft as long as I've got fun games to play.
I need to add a PS. Even if the ESPN license was a non-factor, none of the sports games in that top 10 would have reached those heights without the NFL and NBA licenses. So, again, they DO count as games which are sold because they have big-name licenses.
There's no way to tell how much effect the ESPN name had on those who bought NFL 2k5, mainly because of the huge price break compared to Madden. I can say, though, that the presentation seemed to be a big factor in all the glowing reviews of the 2k games over the last two years, and that presentation would have been radically different without the ESPN brand. It certainly increased my enjoyment of those games the past couple of years.
Wow. Wrong again. Sega, and now EA, paid ESPN to use their name, style and people in sports video games. ESPN doesn't need videogames to promote their brand considering they have NFL, NBA and MLB games on their networks. Further, even if you had been correct on the ESPN issue (again, you're not), those games still have to pay for the license to use NBA and NFL teams - both the leagues and player associations of each sport get money for that.
And? Getting into the top 10 doesn't have to be the goal for a game. In fact, it isn't the goal for most games.
I just went to Amazon and took a look at a couple of the characters I mentioned above. Shrek 2 - now an "old" game that has reached the $20 pricepoint - clocked in at 113 in video games and 225 in electronics. Pretty good, huh? The #1 gaming product at Amazon today is the Spongebob Squarepants GBA deal. Chicken Little for GBA is on the rise at #25; New Harry Potter at 29, 31, 58; Disney Princess at 43; etc...and I left out the various Star Wars games, and a couple of licensed GBA video products, littered in that range.
Now, it's possible that NONE of those games will end up in the top 10 sellers of the year but they all have something in common: They are, for the most part, selling more because of their licenses and less because they might be kick-ass games. I would also note that this is a list of top sellers on an Internet site. I would expect the numbers to be even higher in a B&M establishment where there would be a greater number of impulse sales to consumers with no accurate knowledge about video games or about the wealth of game reviews available on the Internet.
In short, licenses are great for profits because while a developer/publisher may pay a lot up-front for the license, they can pay a lot less for making the game itself (for example, little kids would want the newest Harry Potter game for their PS2 even if the texture and model detail was atrocious and it took two minutes to load a 10-minute level). Add in the free cross-promotional aspect and the game is almost automatic - assuming the characters have appeal at the time of release - to break even and more.
I think you may be underestimating the videogame purchasing power of people who don't care about videogames: Parents and other relatives of small children. Licenses like Shrek, Spongebob and the like make nice bank in the videogame realm - no matter the quality of the games - because relatives of children are willing to buy those kinds of games on pure spec, figuring that their kids will like it because it has Famous Character X in it. Add in kids shopping with adults, grabbing an adult's arm and saying "Can I have that Batman game?" and you've got nice sales. Enter The Matrix was panned by virtually every "serious" gamer, both for gameplay and for bugs, and it sold tons.
Trying to judge the overall videogame market by a) what's good and b) people who are so into games that they talk about them on the Interweb ignores a huge portion of real world sales.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it's an "outright lie" because you imagine it to be so? You probably should have stayed in school and perhaps taken "Marketing 102" where you might have learned that it's a really bad idea to piss off consumers by advertising a product that can't be purchased.
It's hardly a surprise that IBM isn't getting solid yields on processors with 3.2-GHz cores (particularly with lower power consumption and lower heat output) considering PowerMacs still haven't made it to 3 GHz - instead having to double up on processors and now on cores - and Apple never felt comfortable going to the G5 in their notebook line.
So, yes, you're technically correct that it's possible for Microsoft to make the games run from the hard drive. However, the idea that they'd do so is very Lenny.
How would Microsoft manage such a feat of "patching" all these games with new textures and the like anyway? They would have to replace executables (to access textures from the hard drive instead of the DVD - at the minimum), test them and then have the space on the hard drive to hold them. Even more important, it would take more than a few seconds to make it happen over Xbox Live (textures are already big and would be bigger if they were higher resolution).
If nothing else, this gives Sony something to shoot for. Whatever graphical improvements were applied to PS1 games on the PS2 were so tiny that no one cared (I never saw them myself). If Sony can do for PS2 games on the PS3 what Microsoft has done for Xbox games on the 360, it'll be pretty damned cool.
Just a small clarification: NO suit that the RIAA files against an individual is anything but a civil suit. Private individuals and corporations don't get to "sue" criminally. If they want criminal charges, they have to bring a complaint to the appropriate prosecutorial authority (federal/state/local) and that authority will then send anchoose whether or not to file charges.
Some folks get confused because the basis of the RIAA lawsuits is potentially a criminal act (depending on the particular jurisdiction) but the lawsuit itself is entirely a civil matter. The RIAA doesn't get to sue anyone into jail.
I suppose Oblivion is a possibility, but I tend to doubt it. The only reason I can think of for a game to span 36GB of disc space is the [over]use of pre-rendered high-definition "cutscenes" which doesn't seem like a very Elder Scrollsish thing to do.
It is the opinion of the Team BABBSTER that the Team HEXUS needs to a) be a little less impressed with itself and b) find something important to care about. Microsoft and every Xbox Live user finding out that I'm using the options blade, listening to music, playing King Kong or watching a DVD on my 360 isn't at all important, ever. If it is, there's always my favorite "opt-out" option: Yanking the Ethernet cable.
I may be guilty of oversimplification but some of the suggestions here demonstrate a naivete that, while charming, isn't at all helpful. At the risk of being accused of being simplistic again, the question was about how to improve the business of a game store - a place to sell games - and not how to create a warm, fuzzy environment where kids can hang out after school and play cool videogames. That seems like a job for Boys & Girls Club, and not one for someone trying to move product.
If you have the space, I suggest putting a couch in with a TV, or a couple of TVs, instead of the regular IDUs. It'll make your stores feel welcoming and people will want to stay.
I'd make this suggestion, too, especially if you want to have a free gaming lounge instead of a videogame store.
Anybody who wants to hang out in a videogame store probably has too much time on their hands and thus doesn't have a job providing the money to spend on videogames. While folks should certainly feel comfortable and confident enough in the retailer to chat and ask questions, I don't think you want people loitering in your store for hours on end in the hopes that you'll make a $15 profit on one used videogame every couple weeks. In fact, I personally avoid such congregations like the plague. If I go by a videogame store where there are a bunch of kids goofing off, I don't stop in. I'm getting cranky in my old (33) age and I don't need the exposure to kids arguing about who gets next on the demo system(s).
The best ways to get a little store going strong are the tried-and-true methods. Traditional advertising for example. Local newspapers (including - perhaps especially - the free weeklies) can give some good value. Depending on your local market radio, and even TV (late-night), advertising might be cheaper than you'd expect. Fliers take a lot of work in distribution but put one out there with a "buy two (or three, maybe even four) used games get one free" deal and folks could turn out nicely.
Gaming community development might be a good deal, too, but in smaller doses than encouraging regular loitering in the store. Sponsoring an Xbox/PC LAN party could get some business going if you can find the right spots to advertise.
As with any business, it's all about getting the people who have the money and the desire to spend it on videogames, into your store. Again, I think attracting loiterers to the store is at best a waste of time, and at worst could slow business even further.
My "political inclination" would be to say that anyone taking a check from the feds because they need it to put a roof over their head and food on their table ought not to be buying videogames anyway. So, either you offered that as a complete non-sequitir - a "free shot" at the US government - or some people should have their benefits cut.
Whatever cost advantage was realized with the advent of the game CD was overtaken within just a couple short years by the cost of developing the content to fill up a CD. In that vein, you might want to thank Microsoft for slowing things down a bit by sticking with DVD considering that games, traditionally, have expanded to fit the storage media. Things will go to an even crazier level if developers feel the need to fill up 18- or 36-GB PS3 Blu-Ray discs.
Vice versa, PC games with their resolutions commonly reaching 1600*1200 the least, often times requiring a hardware upgrade just to reach 60 frames per second, hardware stress-testing graphics should cost $60~$80 by now.
First off, I would note that some big PC games have debuted at about $60. They usually quickly fall to $50 but PC games at $60 would be nothing new. More important to the comparison of price between PC and console is the issue of licensing. Developers/publishers don't have to pay a dime to Microsoft (apart, perhaps, from buying development tools) to release a game for Windows. For console games, a piece of every game sale goes back to Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. Depending on who you ask (I suspect it depends on specific agreements between publishers and console companies, and it's not common public knowledge) publishers are paying $5-10 per unit to the console manufacturer. That's a pretty hefty cut out of potential profits, and it's the biggest reason (besides the desire to increase sales) you see price drops happen for PC games much more quickly than for console games.
And, finally, both the console and PC gaming markets are significantly larger than they were in the past. This, perhaps even more than the change in physical media, is the biggest reason that prices have remained so stable over the years. Assuming the market begins to plateau somewhat it's perfectly reasonable for prices to go up. I'd argue that it's probably long overdue - annoying to me as a gamer but very reasonable in terms of realstic business.
DVI is part of the video chipset, Bluetooth in the Mini is optional and actually does make things more difficult (specifically, it makes changing the DIMM a bit harder), Firewire doesn't take up much space and generates virtually no extra heat (despite the name), AND the 360 has its own wireless system built in.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but considering how [unreasonably] hard they were pounded for the size of the Xbox it's understandable that they wanted to move the power supply outside to save some space - and, again, remove another heat source from inside the box. I might noteas well that the Mac Mini has an external power supply but that would just be over the top.
Personally, I don't understand your problem with an external "brick" [that actually works]. If it means the device actually on display is smaller, that's more important to me than the loss of some unseen, unused floor real estate...
It's not nearly "the same stuff." Faster processor speeds, three cores, far more advanced graphics solution...These are the kinds of things that increase the size of the 360 simply due to the increase in the amount of heat produced. The Mac Mini has one G4 running at 1.25 or 1.42 GHz and a 32MB ATI 9200 graphics solution. In other words, it doesn't have a hope in hell of running advanced games at HD-type resolutions (the Mini would choke at 640x480 in brand-new games).
Don't get me wrong. The Mini is a kick-ass item for - or because of - its size but it's not going to game anywhere close to the 360, or even the iMac (which is also quite small considering the integration with the display) with its G5 and 128MB ATI x600 setup.
It's virtually impossible to defend yourself against a space offensive due to this feature of battle in space.
Feature? I'd call that a bug.
However, all his movies are highly dependent on manipulating his viewers' emotions into what he thinks they should feel and rarely do they engage the viewers' intellect.
Virtually all fiction is designed to "manipulate" the viewers' emotions. Otherwise, what's the point? Even good documentaries are edited so that they will entertain (which requires an emotional reaction) as well as inform. If you dislike Jerry Bruckheimer for generally creating fiction with a ham-handed approach to said manipulation, that's cool, but manipulating emotions is what entertainment - smart or dumb - is all about.
Oh yeah, and the Xbox doesn't have a "very small collection" of games. Anyone who buys an Xbox today would have enough games available to play for at least a year or two (assuming some sort of life outside of videogames, of course) without "reruns."
I don't know the exact release date of the Voodoo, but their original 3D acceleration daughter cards were also released in 1996, so you're talking about a maximum potential difference of months. It's also irrelevant since MOST consoles are not bought at launch, so by the the time most people have a videogame console it's already lagging state-of-the-art PC gaming rigs in any case.
Now you're just being silly. No console (well, maybe the Neo-Geo) has ever shipped with - for example - more memory or a faster CPU than a state-of-the-art PC available at the time of console launch. So, the argument is bullshit. The argument is made even more ridiculous because nobody with half a brain is going to be caught deciding between an Xbox 360 and a $2,000 Alienware system based on system specs. They may decide on the PC because of particular games, particular display capabilities and, perhaps most important, general purpose versus gaming only, but not because the Xbox 360 is "remarkable [sic] weak" - an assertion which, again, is stupid on its face given the monstrous price difference.
I know I'm feeding the troll here, but I feel the need to highlight one of the funniest things I've read on Slashdot in months:
:)
"Stick an ATI card in there and you've got a system that is performing around the level of a dual 2.5ghz 970 PowerMac. Which is why you keep hearing first hand impression talk about how 360 games look no better than the games people are playing at home."
So, the quote above, in essence, means that Microsoft is charging $300 (the core system is supposedly going to play at least 99% of 360 games, though I expect HD-requiring games like MMOGs as the 360 goes on) for a gaming experience comparable to that of a $2,000 Power Mac with the actual consistent release of games? The tone says complaint, the content says "OMG the Xbox 360 is a fantastic deal!"
Well, yes, it did stay afloat (on a sea of Microsoft green). I've certainly enjoyed my Xbox immensely (and will continue to for some time). As a gaming consumer, I couldn't possibly care less whether the thing made a profit for Microsoft as long as I've got fun games to play.
I need to add a PS. Even if the ESPN license was a non-factor, none of the sports games in that top 10 would have reached those heights without the NFL and NBA licenses. So, again, they DO count as games which are sold because they have big-name licenses.
There's no way to tell how much effect the ESPN name had on those who bought NFL 2k5, mainly because of the huge price break compared to Madden. I can say, though, that the presentation seemed to be a big factor in all the glowing reviews of the 2k games over the last two years, and that presentation would have been radically different without the ESPN brand. It certainly increased my enjoyment of those games the past couple of years.
Wow. Wrong again. Sega, and now EA, paid ESPN to use their name, style and people in sports video games. ESPN doesn't need videogames to promote their brand considering they have NFL, NBA and MLB games on their networks. Further, even if you had been correct on the ESPN issue (again, you're not), those games still have to pay for the license to use NBA and NFL teams - both the leagues and player associations of each sport get money for that.
I just went to Amazon and took a look at a couple of the characters I mentioned above. Shrek 2 - now an "old" game that has reached the $20 pricepoint - clocked in at 113 in video games and 225 in electronics. Pretty good, huh? The #1 gaming product at Amazon today is the Spongebob Squarepants GBA deal. Chicken Little for GBA is on the rise at #25; New Harry Potter at 29, 31, 58; Disney Princess at 43; etc...and I left out the various Star Wars games, and a couple of licensed GBA video products, littered in that range.
Now, it's possible that NONE of those games will end up in the top 10 sellers of the year but they all have something in common: They are, for the most part, selling more because of their licenses and less because they might be kick-ass games. I would also note that this is a list of top sellers on an Internet site. I would expect the numbers to be even higher in a B&M establishment where there would be a greater number of impulse sales to consumers with no accurate knowledge about video games or about the wealth of game reviews available on the Internet.
In short, licenses are great for profits because while a developer/publisher may pay a lot up-front for the license, they can pay a lot less for making the game itself (for example, little kids would want the newest Harry Potter game for their PS2 even if the texture and model detail was atrocious and it took two minutes to load a 10-minute level). Add in the free cross-promotional aspect and the game is almost automatic - assuming the characters have appeal at the time of release - to break even and more.
I think you may be underestimating the videogame purchasing power of people who don't care about videogames: Parents and other relatives of small children. Licenses like Shrek, Spongebob and the like make nice bank in the videogame realm - no matter the quality of the games - because relatives of children are willing to buy those kinds of games on pure spec, figuring that their kids will like it because it has Famous Character X in it. Add in kids shopping with adults, grabbing an adult's arm and saying "Can I have that Batman game?" and you've got nice sales. Enter The Matrix was panned by virtually every "serious" gamer, both for gameplay and for bugs, and it sold tons.
Trying to judge the overall videogame market by a) what's good and b) people who are so into games that they talk about them on the Interweb ignores a huge portion of real world sales.