I just checked both websites (Costco.com and EBGames.com). The Wii is sold out at Costco. EBGames only has bundles, but even then, they don't ship until AFTER Christmas.
Please check your facts before you post! You got my hopes up.:(
friends? you bet. I have kept in touch with my friends from highschool. acquaintances? nope. if they'd be my friends I wouldn't have to track them down.
For me and many others (and possibly you as well), there's certainly a number of friends that I have lost track of. Sure, maybe I would consider them more acquaintances than anything, but I still find it interesting to have a way to keep up with them or find them. There are plenty of "acquaitances" that have developed into more deeper friendships, that you might not have otherwise materialized.
As for other benefits to social networks (particularly Facebook, the one I most frequent), there are plenty. One in particular is that it's less intrusive, especially with folks you might consider to be more on the level of an "acquaintance". I wouldn't call up a classmate I only knew briefly in high school, and probably not e-mail either (especially if they haven't made it visible). Yet something like Facebook allows for lighter interaction (pokes/prods/nudges/writing on walls), as well as being able to lurk and view their visible profile/photos/etc.
For example, let's say this classmate now works in the same city you do. Your interactions with him/her can start off lightly (post on their wall: "Hi! Remember me from school? Anyway, just wanted to say hi!"), and then possibly move from there. Sure, at some point, it might get deeper (exchange e-mail, phone numbers, meet up over lunch, etc.). Basically, it's another way of establishing connections, finding friends, etc. Heck, I've seen it used as an excellent way of establishing romantic relationships (flirting, etc.).
Yes, you can still do all of this using existing technologies (phone, e-mail), but that doesn't mean that should remain the only way. Your attitude almost reminds me of folks who were nay sayers on cell phones, or heck, even e-mail: "What's wrong with just calling people? Who needs this newfangled e-mail thing?"
Maybe his daughter was caught using an iPod? Or perhaps his work machine's cache was found to have a Google Search results page in it?
But, in all seriousness, it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft had a very stringent agreement with it's employees such that you're guilty of violating company policy at all times. Something really vague and impossible to avoid like "you shall not support a competitor in anyway with any of your personal funds or free time." They only let you go if they want to and so few get let go on these grounds that nobody really cares about it. Does anyone know if this is the case?
It really wouldn't surprise me if they treated their employees the same way they treat their customers.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as someone who works at MS, they don't treat their employees like that. (Nor do I think we treat all of our customers like that either, but that's a separate discussion!)
There are plenty of people around here (myself included) that use competing products. We're talking about Macs, Firefox, Google, iPhone, iPod, PlayStation, etc. Yeah, some of it is competitive analysis and such, but a lot of it is just due to personal preference, and it is draconian to think that an employer would force such measures on their employees. Obviously MS would like everyone to drink nothing but Kool-Aid, and will suggest people buy Zunes, use Live Search, etc. and I think that's fine and healthy. I would expect Google and Apple to do the same thing with its employees, allowing them to run/own/use the competition's products.
I think this is a tired argument. what, these people don't have email or a phone? social networks are for attention whores and you know it. anything else is just an excuse.
I know you're just a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
Do you know the e-mail addresses or cell phone numbers of all your friends from high school, many of which you've lost touch with over the years? I doubt it. Much of that data would be normally impossible to find as well, especially if those friends aren't Net savvy (don't have their own web sites, blogs, etc.). But thanks to something like Facebook, since you're part of the same network or group, it's a heckuva lot easier to find people again.
There are plenty of other benefits to social networks that go beyond e-mail and phone.
Frankly, I'm surprised that a lot of Slashdotters (like yourself) are so anti-social networks. Luddites I say!
Sites like GeoCities and Angelfire, and how they were used in the "old skool days" are different than the social networking sites today. GC provided a platform for users to do anything. So, you had a huge mish-mash of random personal websites (what we'd call blogs and social networking sites today) and of actual, real content (guides to your favorite comic, cooking tips, video game info, whatever).
For those who merely want to be able to have a public diary or a forum where they can communicate with their friends, I think it's a good thing that we have sites like Facebook which provide all of the basic tools. It's certainly much more usable to my friends who I still want to keep in touch with, but aren't computer savvy at all.
On the other hand, Facebook and MySpace are not meant to replace the other type of GeoCities/Angelfire sites, the one with actual content. I agree that a lot of that stuff was pretty in-depth and interesting at times. For those sites, there are other web platforms you'd use to publish your content.
A margin which hasn't changed, thus the whole bit about the same pace. If that margin were growing wider then your argumetns would be a lot more credible, but since it isn't you can't say that the PS3 will do better or worse for a certainty. It's mostly just baseless speculation.
Sure, the margin hasn't changed. But the margin right now is BAD for the PS3. That's my whole point. It's behind in both current sales, and also compared to the Wii and 360 during its respective launches.
What's wrong with saying, "The PS3 is behind right now, and it will need to improve sales in the future, in order to catch up to the 360 and Wii"? I think that's a very respectable and truthful statement. It's by no means "OMG PS3 IS D00MED", just an honest look at the sales situation today.
What I think is dishonest is saying that the PS3 is doing well now. It is certainly not where Sony wants sales to be right now. One reason why so many gamers and tech junkies have so much hate for Sony is because, in the past, they tended to spin and lie all the time. Remember the whole, "There are lots of PS3 shortages right now" claim earlier this year, when it was obviously clear there wasn't any? (Penny-Arcade famously called them out on this)
A lot of the talk in Fable 2 is actually about the gameplay elements, not so much that it looks good. (It does, but that's not really the point)
Personally, I'm interested in the dog element of the game. Having grown up with a German Shepard as a kid, and knowing how attached you can get to pets, I'm digging a lot what Molyneux discussed at the last Fable 2 showing. It definitely adds to the immersiveness of the game, if you start growing attached to your dog. (Of course, if you've never grown up around pets, then you may not care for that part of the gameplay at all)
I think it's somewhat unfair that Sony should magically be able to catch up to Microsoft despite the year lead.
As I said before, it doesn't matter what's "fair" or "unfair". Were you complaining about Sony's year lead with the PS3, over the Xbox and GameCube? And again, even though the 360 had a year lead over the Wii, we see that Nintendo looks like they'll be able to catch up easily.
Assuming that Sony had a better launch and sold out much like the Wii, people would probably spin things the other way and say that Microsoft is doomed because Sony is set to outpace them. If the sales trends continue, they'll be about even, the only difference is that Sony would be about a year behind Microsoft. If we were both running a race and I had an hour head start over you it doesn't necessarily make the most sense to compare our heads up relationship so early on in the race. If you're running only as fast as I am, I'll only finish the race an hour ahead of you, but if you're running at a different speed, the end results can change significantly. This early on it makes far more sense to compare the rate.
According to that graph, the Wii is beating the pants off both the PS3 and 360. The 360, however, is also beating the PS3 by a not-insignificant margin, and has been for several months now.
Even if the PS3 continues on a lackluster course, Sony won't be out of the console business anytime soon.
Oh, I think we all agree there. They're definitely in it for the long haul. Anyone claiming that "Sony is teh d00med" shouldn't be taken seriously. They've had more than enough success with the PS2 and arguably with the PSP that they will certainly be around for the PS4 and probably beyond.
What I fail to see is why you have some problem admitting to the fact that the PS3 is selling just as well as the Xbox 360 did at launch.
I think we have a miscommunication problem. My point was that even if the PS3 were selling just as well as the Xbox 360 did at launch, that's moot.
My view is that the PS3 is doing just fine and that everyone has spent so much time decrying it as a failure that they're actually starting to believe it. Look at the numbers and see for yourself that the PS3 is on track globally to sell the same number of units in the same time frame that the Xbox 360 has done. If you don't like my analysis that's your own business, but you can't look at those numbers and suggest that the PS3 is somehow doing worse.
The PS3 numbers are doing fine, if you compare them against the 360 in its point of the lifespan (your quote in bold). But if you compare them heads up, it's not doing very well at all. That's what the vast majority of people are focused on, because at the end of the day, that's what matters.
Even though it may not "be fair" that the 360 got a head-start over the PS3, the fact of the matter is that it did. It's the same advantage the PS2 had over the original Xbox. Heck, even though the Wii released a year after the 360, we're already seeing that it's going to catch up pretty darn quickly. It's becoming fairly evident that right now, the PS3 isn't doing fine.
IMHO if I were a Sony exec, I wouldn't be thinking that the platform is in good shape. They need to take action to be more competitive. I think it's fine to admit that, as long as you have a plan on righting that ship.
Hmm, to be honest, I don't know if you're just an anti-MS troll, or a secretive Sony plant. You can read my profile/journal and see where my biases lie, although I'm a gamer at heart and try to call them as I see them (even if it's not positive for MS).
That said, I guess I'll take the bait and respond again to your confusing analysis...
My assumption clearly states that as long as the demand outpaces the supply, any new consoles introduced to the market will be immediately purchased (read stories about how Wii's are still flying off shelves as an example).
True. As long as demand outpaces supply, I think it's safe to assume that shelves will generally be empty.
However, it's been known that there have been Xbox 360's on store shelves in the wild now for some time. I think that by early summer you could easily walk into a store and pick one up.
Well, I think you mean early summer in 2006, since the console launched in Fall 2005. Actually, I think it was a bit earlier than that. I believe anecdotally, the shortage ended around March, a few months after ship. But yes, definitely in early summer, you could walk into a store and pick one up.
The fact that there were there extra consoles available for puchase that weren't, suggests that the Xbox 360 reached a point of saturation in the market. If it hadn't, there wouldn't have been consoles on store shelves.
This is where I disagree. What do you mean by "saturation"? Surely you don't mean market saturation, because what you described isn't the definition of saturation. Certainly there are many households that don't have a video game console, let alone a "next-gen" one, let alone a 360. MS is not getting sales growth via population growth or stealing market-share from someone else. The market for next-gen consoles is certainly not saturated by any means.
If the 360 truly were market saturated, then that doesn't explain why it continued to sell the way it has for the next year (along with a pretty healthy bump last holiday season).
The pace of the sales has been fairly similar with the exception of the holiday season when purchases spiked and have since returned to a similar rate before the holidays. We can't ever know for a certainty that if Microsoft hadn't had supply issues, that their sales would have been greater. Even assuming that they were, the long run results would still likely be the same.
I agree that we can't "ever know for certainty". I would argue that sales would be greater, and you are free to argue otherwise.
However, I would say that in some of your previous posts, you actually assume you "know for certainty" and are masquerading around as if it's fact. I'm calling you out on that. You can't conveniently leave out the fact that there were shortages around the 360 launch timeframe, just because it wrecks a hole in your "well, the PS3 is doing as well as the 360 did at its launch!" theory.
Dude, either you're just another Sony fanboy that's spinning the numbers just to make your "beloved platform" look good (and doing a pretty bad job at it), or you're somehow affiliated with Sony and not being truthful about it. Own up, please.
Even as someone who works at MS, I will happily admit that while the 360 is doing fine in the US and Europe, it's absolutely being trounced in Japan. And the Wii is, very quickly, catching up to it. I'm not going to fudge numbers or try to spin statistics otherwise. Why are you trying to do it for the PS3, though, is beyond me.
Ok, let's take your suggestion then - don't align the launches, which should play out what is happening currently. The result looks like this.
Now what does that say? The PS3, despite its price disadvantage, is maintaining approximate parity with the X360 - the gap isn't widening or narrowing particularly. The Wii is kicking some serious butt. And the PS3 definitely has upward momentum at the moment, given the price drop.
I don't get your point. Isn't maintaining approximate parity with the 360 a bad thing? The PS3 has to narrow the gap, not maintain it. If anything, your graph shows that Sony is in deep trouble, as it's been half a year and the gap remains huge. Whereas the Wii is doing exactly what it needs to: catch up in a big way.
Also, it's way to early to analyze the price drop. Of course it's going to have upwards momentum. That's a no brainer. The big question is going to be how long it lasts. IMHO, dropping the price in July seems really dumb. It's a slow sales month. If anything, a price drop would make sense closer to Fall or Winter. Wouldn't Sony see their 10-20% increase in sales during a period where more consoles are sold? By the time Fall rolls around, a lot of the price-drop buzz will be long gone.
Look at the sales rate on that graph. If your statement were entirely true, then as soon as more supply became available, the Xbox 360 would have seen a large spike in sales, but the sales trend continues at the same pace until the Christmas season when you see the sharp increase. I imagine that Sony will experience something like this with the PS3 and then fall back to normal, as did the Xbox 360.
Your belief that there should have been a "large spike in sales" is flawed. It depends on how the supply situation was corrected. If MS just shipped in a huge boatload of 360s all of a sudden, then yes, I would agree that ideally there'd be a sharp increase. However, that's not how it's done. Rather, supply gradually increased (coupled with demand slowly decreasing). At some point, supply does meet demand, but it's not clear exactly when this happened. (Anecdotal evidence points to this happening around March of last year)
So in short, that sales chart does "short change" the 360 and the Wii.
In any case, I think the whole "well so-and-so console is performing as good as console Y did in its lifecycle" is not nearly as important as many seem to think. It's an interesting statistic, but ultimately, consoles aren't competing against each other's history. They're competing against what else is on shelves now. It's actually damned easy to skew statistics and find something that "looks good" for whatever console you happen to be a fanboy for, but at the end of the day, it's going to be the actual sales units and current sales growth that's important.
Right now, the 360 still has a nice unit lead over the Wii and PS3 (thanks to its head start, of course). But the Wii is beating the pants off both, in terms of sales growth (and it's still supply limited). Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of good news for the PS3, other than employing shady statistic techniques (blah blah compared to other console lifecycles, etc).
Do these marketing campaigns really work? Is there some way to tell?
It seems the only people they are virally marketing to are the ones who are already dead set on buying their games once they are released..
I agree that this type of viral marketing really isn't going to be good at nabbing that potential "first time Halo player". Pretty much the only people involved are those who are Halo fans to begin with, and of course they're going to buy the game.
But well-done ARG campaigns, such as ilovebees, really bolster that hardcore community. We already know that community building is important for franchises to develop fanbases, but actually measuring their ultimate financial benefit is probably rather difficult. Or at the least, very different than traditional means (counting eyeballs, consumer satisfaction ratings, etc.).
I think we all know why community is important, as we've all seen it at work in all sorts of places. Heck, Slashdot is a community of sorts. Make the community happy, and those that are in it are less likely to leave, and also more likely to try to get other people involved. Having a rich and vibrant community can entice people that aren't involved, to become so. But measuring how many more game sales that actually translates to, is difficult.
The Halo 3 beta really isn't going to change the opinions of the game that gamers have had for years now. Those that like the franchise continue to be wowed by the gameplay, and the sheer fun they have in the multiplayer. On the other hand, if you've never understood what the fuss was about, or even a "Halo hater" (something that's common and the "in" thing to do especially if you're a PC gamer), then it's not like the Beta is going to suddenly change your opinion of the franchise. There's plenty to pick on in the Beta, if you're for or against the series.
IMHO, all the debating and argument that goes on is pretty moot, and just turns into a huge troll-fest. It's like two groups speaking two totally different languages. Personally, I'm a fan of the franchise, but since I grew up as a hardcore PC gamer (keyboard/mouse forever!), I can definitely understand the "meh" attitude from some fellow gamers. As a result, I like the franchise, but I'm not "OMG! I <3 M4ST3R CHEIF".
The one thing that pretty much is indisputable is the massive presence this game will bring come September. Halo fans are vocal, and there are definitely a lot of them. I cringe at the amount of marketing and Halo talk that we'll get plenty of this Fall.
A lot of technical reasons have been provided by other posters, so I won't dive into that. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is money, specifically however much Sony may have provided to keep the title exclusive to their platform.
Naturally, the smaller the install base, the more you would expect the platform provider to pay in order to keep the title exclusive. There has to be an incentive for a developer NOT to spend some time/money to broaden the audience. It could be straight-up dollars, or it could be something liked shared marketing costs, etc.
Whether or not Sony is actually doing this for the premiere Final Fantasy franchise, and if so how much they're providing, will obviously be a very well kept secret.
As a couple people have noted, including a fellow MS tester in games, it really depends on where the QA position is, and what the actual role is about.
I agree that pure QA game testing, where all you're doing is manually testing games to find bugs, discover balance issues, etc. is pretty grueling, not often respected, and unfortunately "a dime a dozen" at many places. However, there is much more to QA than that. Especially on the platform side, where I am, QA is far more technical. We're just as knee-deep in code as developers, as we're expected to do much of our testing via automation, write various tools to make processes more efficient, investigate the "tough bugs" that even developers have a hard time tracking down, and also responsible for performance/stress testing as well.
But as you may guess, being that type of QA is not the "easy way" to break into the industry. It's a position that's pretty demanding, and requires just as much skill and talent as your typical game developer. Many of us also hold BS or even MS degrees in Engineering and Computer Science, and have had years of software experiences in other places.
My ass. There's no way in hell. We already have a standard gaming platform. It's called the PC. The industry won't make another one. Well, Microsoft might claim to, but it won't really be a standard.
Mac fans may cry foul here. Also, what do you mean by "platform"? There are so many variants to the PC platform. Games run different, depending on your processor speed, type, amount of RAM, video card, etc. If anything, I'd say the PC platform is far from being the "standard gaming platform". That's why there are so many gamers that are sick of the "upgrade wars" and have run to console gaming, where there's much more stability in hardware.
Sam Kennedy is editor in chief of 1UP.com, which is one of the larger game sites (and part of the overall Ziff Davis network). He is most certainly press. The fact that he also blogs on 1UP.com, along with many of the other editors and writer, is just gravy.
I don't know about you guys, but while I enjoyed the new gameplay mechanics in FFXII, I was not a fan of its universe, its story, nor of its characters and such. It was much too bland for my tastes, albeit more realistic than some of the earlier games (FFX, etc.).
So, my worry is that perhaps the FFXIII universe won't be interesting either. If that's the case, then regular fans of the series may be put off, and we'll have to wait a decade before we see something different. Obviously this can work the opposite as well. In any case, this is rather risky for Square-Enix.
I suggest playing KOTOR 2 with "reduced expectations". The sequel wasn't actually developed by Bioware, but by Obsidian Entertainment. You can read more about it at the KOTOR 2 wiki page.
Personally, I never got around to finishing the sequel, as I just found it rather bland compared to the first game. It also got a lot of criticism for being buggy and essentially unfinished.
Just a reminder that March saw the release of the WII in Europe, so they obviously shipped more units there for the ramp up to launch day than to the US.
Hmm, according to Wikipedia, the Wii launched in Europe last December. You are probably thinking about the PS3, which yes launched in Europe only a month or so ago.
Then again, Super Paper Mario came out recently and is only going to fuel more Wii seekers. I mean, c'mon. It is Mario.
While I certainly want to play it (as a self-professed hardcore gamer) I imagine that many of the new casual gaming folk (the grandparents that picked up a Wii for Wii Sports), won't care that much about that game. Paper Mario is not exactly a casual, "anyone can pick up and play" type of game. So it will be very interesting to see how well that title sells through. I imagine it will still perform well, but the attach rate may not be as high as some people might expect for a typical Mario game.
They stockpiled an assload before the launch at christmas, and those have trickled out onto the market. The lowering numbers mean the supply sitting in the warehouses in japan is running out.
I'm sure if anything production has increased, just not enough to meet the demand.
I am aware of stockpiling units, which is why I didn't include the November and December numbers. I really doubt that Nintendo was "trickling out units" past December. It doesn't make sense to sit on such a high-demand item, as you always run the fear of upsetting consumers and having them purchase something else (perhaps a 360 or PS3, or get that budget PS2 they haven't gotten yet). (And no, I am not in the school of thought that Nintendo purposely restricted supply to cause shortages)
That said, I don't think anyone outside of Nintendo will know for sure either way.
Ahh yes, I probably should have mentioned in my post, that NPD is only North America.
People have made many good points about regions. The numbers would make a lot of sense, if it's just a matter of Nintendo shifting production capacity from region to region. If someone could pull worldwide numbers of the Wii, that would help.
That said, it is disconcerting that, at the very least, North America seems to be getting fewer and fewer units. I'm speaking from the point of a North American consumer, who just wants to be able to buy the console. From a business perspective, Nintendo may be doing the right thing, if it thinks that supplying Europe and/or Japan is more important than North America at the moment.
First of all, I should mention that I'm somewhat biased (read my profile). That said, I do like what Nintendo is doing, and have been seeking out a Wii for months now. However, I'm not willing to buy one on eBay, or call stores everyday, or stake out early morning shipments at Target. I do look for one everytime I'm at Costco or Fred Meyer (a local big-box store where I do my grocery shopping). I have more than enough games and other things to do, that I don't need one right away, but am willing for it to be a simple impulse buy.
Anyway, I'm confused why the NPD stats show that Wii production is decreasing. Here are the numbers for the past few months:
January: 436,000 February: 335,000 March: 259,000
I think we can all agree that demand far exceeds supply, so these numbers essentially cover production as well. Now, I didn't include the November and December numbers, because they probably still reflect the huge ramp up of Wii units that were pumped out months before launch. I am guessing that most of that initial supply is long gone by January now.
So again, why is Wii production decreasing? As I am not a business person (just a lowly software engineer), someone please correct me if I'm missing something here.
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked both websites (Costco.com and EBGames.com). The Wii is sold out at Costco. EBGames only has bundles, but even then, they don't ship until AFTER Christmas.
:(
Please check your facts before you post! You got my hopes up.
See, you are a troll! Ironically, you even act like a pimply 14 year old! Congratulations! Hope you hit puberty soon. ;)
As for other benefits to social networks (particularly Facebook, the one I most frequent), there are plenty. One in particular is that it's less intrusive, especially with folks you might consider to be more on the level of an "acquaintance". I wouldn't call up a classmate I only knew briefly in high school, and probably not e-mail either (especially if they haven't made it visible). Yet something like Facebook allows for lighter interaction (pokes/prods/nudges/writing on walls), as well as being able to lurk and view their visible profile/photos/etc.
For example, let's say this classmate now works in the same city you do. Your interactions with him/her can start off lightly (post on their wall: "Hi! Remember me from school? Anyway, just wanted to say hi!"), and then possibly move from there. Sure, at some point, it might get deeper (exchange e-mail, phone numbers, meet up over lunch, etc.). Basically, it's another way of establishing connections, finding friends, etc. Heck, I've seen it used as an excellent way of establishing romantic relationships (flirting, etc.).
Yes, you can still do all of this using existing technologies (phone, e-mail), but that doesn't mean that should remain the only way. Your attitude almost reminds me of folks who were nay sayers on cell phones, or heck, even e-mail: "What's wrong with just calling people? Who needs this newfangled e-mail thing?"
There are plenty of people around here (myself included) that use competing products. We're talking about Macs, Firefox, Google, iPhone, iPod, PlayStation, etc. Yeah, some of it is competitive analysis and such, but a lot of it is just due to personal preference, and it is draconian to think that an employer would force such measures on their employees. Obviously MS would like everyone to drink nothing but Kool-Aid, and will suggest people buy Zunes, use Live Search, etc. and I think that's fine and healthy. I would expect Google and Apple to do the same thing with its employees, allowing them to run/own/use the competition's products.
I know you're just a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
Do you know the e-mail addresses or cell phone numbers of all your friends from high school, many of which you've lost touch with over the years? I doubt it. Much of that data would be normally impossible to find as well, especially if those friends aren't Net savvy (don't have their own web sites, blogs, etc.). But thanks to something like Facebook, since you're part of the same network or group, it's a heckuva lot easier to find people again.
There are plenty of other benefits to social networks that go beyond e-mail and phone.
Frankly, I'm surprised that a lot of Slashdotters (like yourself) are so anti-social networks. Luddites I say!
Sites like GeoCities and Angelfire, and how they were used in the "old skool days" are different than the social networking sites today. GC provided a platform for users to do anything. So, you had a huge mish-mash of random personal websites (what we'd call blogs and social networking sites today) and of actual, real content (guides to your favorite comic, cooking tips, video game info, whatever).
For those who merely want to be able to have a public diary or a forum where they can communicate with their friends, I think it's a good thing that we have sites like Facebook which provide all of the basic tools. It's certainly much more usable to my friends who I still want to keep in touch with, but aren't computer savvy at all.
On the other hand, Facebook and MySpace are not meant to replace the other type of GeoCities/Angelfire sites, the one with actual content. I agree that a lot of that stuff was pretty in-depth and interesting at times. For those sites, there are other web platforms you'd use to publish your content.
What's wrong with saying, "The PS3 is behind right now, and it will need to improve sales in the future, in order to catch up to the 360 and Wii"? I think that's a very respectable and truthful statement. It's by no means "OMG PS3 IS D00MED", just an honest look at the sales situation today.
What I think is dishonest is saying that the PS3 is doing well now. It is certainly not where Sony wants sales to be right now. One reason why so many gamers and tech junkies have so much hate for Sony is because, in the past, they tended to spin and lie all the time. Remember the whole, "There are lots of PS3 shortages right now" claim earlier this year, when it was obviously clear there wasn't any? (Penny-Arcade famously called them out on this)
A lot of the talk in Fable 2 is actually about the gameplay elements, not so much that it looks good. (It does, but that's not really the point)
Personally, I'm interested in the dog element of the game. Having grown up with a German Shepard as a kid, and knowing how attached you can get to pets, I'm digging a lot what Molyneux discussed at the last Fable 2 showing. It definitely adds to the immersiveness of the game, if you start growing attached to your dog. (Of course, if you've never grown up around pets, then you may not care for that part of the gameplay at all)
According to that graph, the Wii is beating the pants off both the PS3 and 360. The 360, however, is also beating the PS3 by a not-insignificant margin, and has been for several months now.Oh, I think we all agree there. They're definitely in it for the long haul. Anyone claiming that "Sony is teh d00med" shouldn't be taken seriously. They've had more than enough success with the PS2 and arguably with the PSP that they will certainly be around for the PS4 and probably beyond.
Even though it may not "be fair" that the 360 got a head-start over the PS3, the fact of the matter is that it did. It's the same advantage the PS2 had over the original Xbox. Heck, even though the Wii released a year after the 360, we're already seeing that it's going to catch up pretty darn quickly. It's becoming fairly evident that right now, the PS3 isn't doing fine.
IMHO if I were a Sony exec, I wouldn't be thinking that the platform is in good shape. They need to take action to be more competitive. I think it's fine to admit that, as long as you have a plan on righting that ship.
That said, I guess I'll take the bait and respond again to your confusing analysis
If the 360 truly were market saturated, then that doesn't explain why it continued to sell the way it has for the next year (along with a pretty healthy bump last holiday season).I agree that we can't "ever know for certainty". I would argue that sales would be greater, and you are free to argue otherwise.
However, I would say that in some of your previous posts, you actually assume you "know for certainty" and are masquerading around as if it's fact. I'm calling you out on that. You can't conveniently leave out the fact that there were shortages around the 360 launch timeframe, just because it wrecks a hole in your "well, the PS3 is doing as well as the 360 did at its launch!" theory.
Dude, either you're just another Sony fanboy that's spinning the numbers just to make your "beloved platform" look good (and doing a pretty bad job at it), or you're somehow affiliated with Sony and not being truthful about it. Own up, please.
Even as someone who works at MS, I will happily admit that while the 360 is doing fine in the US and Europe, it's absolutely being trounced in Japan. And the Wii is, very quickly, catching up to it. I'm not going to fudge numbers or try to spin statistics otherwise. Why are you trying to do it for the PS3, though, is beyond me.
Also, it's way to early to analyze the price drop. Of course it's going to have upwards momentum. That's a no brainer. The big question is going to be how long it lasts. IMHO, dropping the price in July seems really dumb. It's a slow sales month. If anything, a price drop would make sense closer to Fall or Winter. Wouldn't Sony see their 10-20% increase in sales during a period where more consoles are sold? By the time Fall rolls around, a lot of the price-drop buzz will be long gone.
So in short, that sales chart does "short change" the 360 and the Wii.
In any case, I think the whole "well so-and-so console is performing as good as console Y did in its lifecycle" is not nearly as important as many seem to think. It's an interesting statistic, but ultimately, consoles aren't competing against each other's history. They're competing against what else is on shelves now. It's actually damned easy to skew statistics and find something that "looks good" for whatever console you happen to be a fanboy for, but at the end of the day, it's going to be the actual sales units and current sales growth that's important.
Right now, the 360 still has a nice unit lead over the Wii and PS3 (thanks to its head start, of course). But the Wii is beating the pants off both, in terms of sales growth (and it's still supply limited). Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of good news for the PS3, other than employing shady statistic techniques (blah blah compared to other console lifecycles, etc).
But well-done ARG campaigns, such as ilovebees, really bolster that hardcore community. We already know that community building is important for franchises to develop fanbases, but actually measuring their ultimate financial benefit is probably rather difficult. Or at the least, very different than traditional means (counting eyeballs, consumer satisfaction ratings, etc.).
I think we all know why community is important, as we've all seen it at work in all sorts of places. Heck, Slashdot is a community of sorts. Make the community happy, and those that are in it are less likely to leave, and also more likely to try to get other people involved. Having a rich and vibrant community can entice people that aren't involved, to become so. But measuring how many more game sales that actually translates to, is difficult.
The Halo 3 beta really isn't going to change the opinions of the game that gamers have had for years now. Those that like the franchise continue to be wowed by the gameplay, and the sheer fun they have in the multiplayer. On the other hand, if you've never understood what the fuss was about, or even a "Halo hater" (something that's common and the "in" thing to do especially if you're a PC gamer), then it's not like the Beta is going to suddenly change your opinion of the franchise. There's plenty to pick on in the Beta, if you're for or against the series.
IMHO, all the debating and argument that goes on is pretty moot, and just turns into a huge troll-fest. It's like two groups speaking two totally different languages. Personally, I'm a fan of the franchise, but since I grew up as a hardcore PC gamer (keyboard/mouse forever!), I can definitely understand the "meh" attitude from some fellow gamers. As a result, I like the franchise, but I'm not "OMG! I <3 M4ST3R CHEIF".
The one thing that pretty much is indisputable is the massive presence this game will bring come September. Halo fans are vocal, and there are definitely a lot of them. I cringe at the amount of marketing and Halo talk that we'll get plenty of this Fall.
A lot of technical reasons have been provided by other posters, so I won't dive into that. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is money, specifically however much Sony may have provided to keep the title exclusive to their platform.
Naturally, the smaller the install base, the more you would expect the platform provider to pay in order to keep the title exclusive. There has to be an incentive for a developer NOT to spend some time/money to broaden the audience. It could be straight-up dollars, or it could be something liked shared marketing costs, etc.
Whether or not Sony is actually doing this for the premiere Final Fantasy franchise, and if so how much they're providing, will obviously be a very well kept secret.
As a couple people have noted, including a fellow MS tester in games, it really depends on where the QA position is, and what the actual role is about.
I agree that pure QA game testing, where all you're doing is manually testing games to find bugs, discover balance issues, etc. is pretty grueling, not often respected, and unfortunately "a dime a dozen" at many places. However, there is much more to QA than that. Especially on the platform side, where I am, QA is far more technical. We're just as knee-deep in code as developers, as we're expected to do much of our testing via automation, write various tools to make processes more efficient, investigate the "tough bugs" that even developers have a hard time tracking down, and also responsible for performance/stress testing as well.
But as you may guess, being that type of QA is not the "easy way" to break into the industry. It's a position that's pretty demanding, and requires just as much skill and talent as your typical game developer. Many of us also hold BS or even MS degrees in Engineering and Computer Science, and have had years of software experiences in other places.
Sam Kennedy is editor in chief of 1UP.com, which is one of the larger game sites (and part of the overall Ziff Davis network). He is most certainly press. The fact that he also blogs on 1UP.com, along with many of the other editors and writer, is just gravy.
I don't know about you guys, but while I enjoyed the new gameplay mechanics in FFXII, I was not a fan of its universe, its story, nor of its characters and such. It was much too bland for my tastes, albeit more realistic than some of the earlier games (FFX, etc.).
So, my worry is that perhaps the FFXIII universe won't be interesting either. If that's the case, then regular fans of the series may be put off, and we'll have to wait a decade before we see something different. Obviously this can work the opposite as well. In any case, this is rather risky for Square-Enix.
Personally, I never got around to finishing the sequel, as I just found it rather bland compared to the first game. It also got a lot of criticism for being buggy and essentially unfinished.
As always, your mileage may vary of course.
That said, I don't think anyone outside of Nintendo will know for sure either way.
Ahh yes, I probably should have mentioned in my post, that NPD is only North America.
People have made many good points about regions. The numbers would make a lot of sense, if it's just a matter of Nintendo shifting production capacity from region to region. If someone could pull worldwide numbers of the Wii, that would help.
That said, it is disconcerting that, at the very least, North America seems to be getting fewer and fewer units. I'm speaking from the point of a North American consumer, who just wants to be able to buy the console. From a business perspective, Nintendo may be doing the right thing, if it thinks that supplying Europe and/or Japan is more important than North America at the moment.
First of all, I should mention that I'm somewhat biased (read my profile). That said, I do like what Nintendo is doing, and have been seeking out a Wii for months now. However, I'm not willing to buy one on eBay, or call stores everyday, or stake out early morning shipments at Target. I do look for one everytime I'm at Costco or Fred Meyer (a local big-box store where I do my grocery shopping). I have more than enough games and other things to do, that I don't need one right away, but am willing for it to be a simple impulse buy.
Anyway, I'm confused why the NPD stats show that Wii production is decreasing. Here are the numbers for the past few months:
January: 436,000
February: 335,000
March: 259,000
I think we can all agree that demand far exceeds supply, so these numbers essentially cover production as well. Now, I didn't include the November and December numbers, because they probably still reflect the huge ramp up of Wii units that were pumped out months before launch. I am guessing that most of that initial supply is long gone by January now.
So again, why is Wii production decreasing? As I am not a business person (just a lowly software engineer), someone please correct me if I'm missing something here.
I just want my Wii, dammit.