Every industry has its pros and cons that become a feature of its landscape. For example, anyone who goes into the oil industry should not be surprised to learn politicians bad mouthing it whenever gas prises rise as well as the 'Congress investigation' that occurs pratically every summer. One can blame Congress but it has become a feature of the landscape of that market. In a similar way, console companies cannot complain about other companies copying them since that has become part of the landscape of the market.
I am amazed that people are amazed Jack Thompsons and anti-game politicians exist. Where have you guys been? Politicians have been complaining about video games ever since Death Ralley and Custer's Last Stand. They have always complained about the game industry.
And, surprise surprise, twenty years from now they will still be complaining about the games industry and passing 'legislation' about it. The reason why they do this is purely political.
The Game Industry has a choice. It can either put a target on itself for all these politicians to target or they can self-regulate themselves so the politicians go away. Businesses do not win when they go against the government (as government not only has infinite money, it can alter the laws as they see fit).
The reason why Nintendo and Sony are saying there will never be an AO game on their system is not because of "zOMG censorship!" but because anyone who has studied the game industry knows the price these adult only games have. They can literally destroy the console in perception.
You might say, "The market demands an AO game," but, actually, it doesn't. The market becomes quite hostile to these AO games. If AO games were what people really wanted, retailers would stock them and Nintendo and Sony would want them on the console. Retailers (including Wal-Mart) stock other AO material and Nintendo had no problem making love hotels.
The problem is not the ESRB or Nintendo or Sony. The "problem" is ignorance from a European designer (not aware of the long pattern of AO game issues in America and elseware). But also the "problem" is the market itself. Porn sells which is why the Internet is filled with porn. But AO games do not sell which is why you rarely see them.
The market overcomes censorship and even self-regulation. This is why we see the equivalent of soft porn (with foul language) on TV during, what used to be known, as the family hours. Perhaps people ought to be asking about the lack of AO games is simply because the market doesn't want it (who really wants to put down money to play games about homosexuals?). Every time someone says "But its' art!" is almost always when the market doesn't want it (but the developer wants to make it anyway because they believe they are "artists").
they [hardcore gamers] aren't the problem, although they may admittedly not be very good at predicting market movements. what do you even mean when you say they're the "problem", that doesn't make sense.
The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were mostly designed with hardcore gamers in mind.
Hardcore said, "We want bigger, more epic, games."
So the games kept getting bigger and more epic.
Hardcore said, "I want my game console to take advantage of my new HD console and uber speakers."
Lo and behold, those consoles do just that.
There is no pleasing the hardcore. All they do is whine, whine, and whine. The reason why consoles now cost $400-$600 dollars is because of the hardcore and their constant demands. They are driving the bread and butter of the industry, REGULAR gamers away. The market was already shrinking in Japan and beginning to stagnate in the West. These expensive HD systems would have shrunk the market. As the market shrinks and costs esculate, well, listen to what Cliffy Blezinsky said in December 2005:
and the 360 is doing pretty well as i understand, sure not as well as the Wii but, so?
Xbox 360? Let's see...
-Estimated 33% units are defective (probably 100% since it is a design flaw. Not a question of IF the console will fail but WHEN). -N'gai Croal of Newsweek has called on Microsoft to recall the system. -Xbox 360 has flopped in Japan. -Xbox 360 is doing poorly in Europe especially outside the UK. -Xbox 360 can't even outsell the PS2 in the United States. And PS2 is like six years old! -Xbox 360 is tracking near the original Xbox sales. And Xbox was a failure as it sold around as much as the Gamecube.
I would not call the above 'doing well' in any sense.
The only silver lining is that Xbox 360 is outselling the PS3. But the difference between those systems is only around four or five million. With Microsoft dead in Japan and low presence in Europe, PS3 will likely surpass it in the long term.
I'm not being 'hateful'. I am trying to be 'truthful'. Game journalists are all hardcore gamers. They have not been expressing how really 'bad' things are currently going for Microsoft and Sony.
Hardcore gamers care about games, not how much money Nintendo can make with the Wii and in terms of games so far the Wii is far away from being impressive.
Tell me about it! The message forums are filled with grandmas, mothers, and other casual gamers going, "n00b! My console is BEATING your console!" These new gamers are such fanboys. I just saw Grandpa make sales charts and Grandma laughing at N'gai Croal demanding the Xbox 360 be recalled.
We are so fortunate that hardcore gamers just play games and never even get on the Internet!
The purest gamer are these new casual players who are only looking for fun. They don't make top ten lists. They don't put photos of Japanese vending machines on a blog. They don't try to analyze the industry. They don't try to imagine games as a type of 'high art' like literature.
They are much more picky with their time. It is easier to make a game for a hardcore player than a casual player. As you said, most people in the games industry are hardcore players. So all they have to do is make a game for themselves. But that is the route to failure.
Movies began to suck when Hollywood began making movies for *themselves* rather than the mass population.
Most books suck because the writer will write for himself/herself instead of for a mass population.
Games began to suck when programmers and all began making games for themselves. Iwata's first speech as president was the "Heart of the Gamer" where he asks, "Are we just making games for ourselves?" One of the Oliver twins echoed the same thing telling todays game designers that they must make games outside their own narrow interests.
And Miyamoto is not a hardcore gamer. He is probably a bored gamer. If people are tired of playing the same games with fancier graphics, don't you think guys like Miyamoto are tired of making them? For all we know, part of the reason why Wii was made was because Nintendo got bored.
Console gaming is supposed to cater to the casuals. Atari 2600 appealed to everyone. The NES was a family console. Only as time went on, the consoles catered more and more to the hardcore. They were the fools with no lives spending fortunes on getting every system, every hot game, buying new home theaters and tvs just for their game console, and even willing to pay half a grand for a game console. Sony and Microsoft view hardcore gamers as 'useful idiots' where they can trojan in all their REAL non-gaming crap from Blu-Ray to downloadable movies.
Nintendo is the true gaming hardware company right now. It is Sony and Microsoft pursuing the non-game route. Hell, they don't even call their systems "game consoles". To them, they call it 'computer entertainment systems'.
It was the casual games that defined this industry. Casual Pong made this industry, not hardcore Computer Space. Pac-Man was huge. Beserk was not. Super Mario Brothers was huge. The 'epic games' on the computers then were not. Tetris was huge while other games, with far superior graphics, were not. Wii Sports is huge while Gears of War was nothing but a fad. And don't get started on computer gaming with huge hits like The Sims or Myst.
Casual gamers are the true axis in which this industry revolves around. Hardcore are not in the center but on the far edges.
2004- When the DS was revealed, they laughed at it. PSP would destroy it, and Nintendo would go third party.
2005- When the "Revolution" was revealed, they laughed at it. "Nintendo cannot compete." Meanwhile, they went 'ONE CONSOLE FUTURE' to the Sony Killzone 2 trailer and Microsoft's Xbox 360 showing.
2005- (TGS) When Nintendo revealed the Wii controller, they laughed at it. They compared it to the Powerglove and that it would flop. They hailed Xbox 360 launch as start of 'high definition' generation.
2006- When the Wii name is announced, hardcore gamers laughed and considered the Revolution to be 'dead' on arrival. After all, who would play the 'Wii' when there were much cooler names like Playstation 3 and Xbox 360?
2006- Nintendo's excellent E3 showing was not worth thinking about, they said. After all, Nintendo fans go ballistic on every Nintendo E3 presence. PS3's brand name would sail it past very fast. And while PS3 was expensive, you got so much value in it! Wii wasn't future proofed.
2006- Wii's $250 price shocked them and they declared it too expensive for any reasonable person to buy. The bundling of Wii Sports would destroy third party software sales. Don't bother pre-ordering since you can walk in the afternoon and buy it anytime.
2007- Wii is still selling out. Obviously, it must be a fad. A novelty. Hardcore gamers believe they are the mainstream after all. PS3 is not 'dead'. It is just 'slow' in starting. It will overtake the market in time. It just has too.
2007- Wii Balance Board? "Nintendo is DEAD as a gaming company!" they proclaim. "I don't even turn on my Wii anymore," they keep telling us. Obviously, the end of Wii had come and everyone will rush to get Xbox 360s and PS3s.
The pattern shows that Hardcore Gamers have been 100% wrong on Nintendo ever since the DS. Why should we listen to them now? They're wrong then, and they are wrong today.
Hardcore gamers say, "I understand Nintendo trying to expand the audience. But why don't they listen to us?" It is because hardcore gamers ARE the problem with gaming. Microsoft and Sony listened to them and look at where that got them. The more Nintendo defies the hardcore, the more their success.
What is harder to make? An invention or a business model? Since there are more working inventions than working business models, it is definately the latter. It is salesmen and entrepreneurs that change the world, not cranky inventors despite whatever mythology one believes. As nerds, we like to think our "intelligence" and "creativity" is the mover and shaker of things. It isn't. This is why I suspect Woz sees himself in Baer.
Bushnell was responsible for making the video-game arcade as well as popularizing the home console. Baer was not. In terms of the beginner of the video-game industry as a working, incredible profitable business, Bushnell is responsible. Bushnell's video-game products SOLD, Baer's video-game products did not. And Baer had the home video-game market completely to himself for many years and still couldn't make it work.
Baer has been suffering sour grapes for a long time. Baer should learn from Steve Russell, the inventor of Spacewar, when he said that, "If I didn't make Spacewar, someone else would. I just happened to get there first." Baer got there first but he (and his company) lacked the ability to sell the product.
The time the article spent trying to 'justify' Baer over Spacewar and Bushnell really indicates how weak Baer's importance is. If you have to base so much of the article on reasons of justification, then that justification probably doesn't exist. Movers and shakers are self-evident and need no lofty defense.
Speaking about beginning the game business, Bushnell could have easily started the PC business. It has to burn him up that Steve Jobs was his employee, that put Jobs underneath his wing, and could have been a major shareholder in Apple. Bushnell could have been Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
But Baer? No. History will remember Baer. But Baer's insistence that he is the fountainhead of video-games is as absurd as Steve Russell saying he is the fountainhead of game arcades. Russell has the humility to admit that he wasn't, that if he didn't make Spacewar than someone else would have. Baer lacks that humility (and while chastizing that Bushnell "stole" his tennis game, he sits the Simon proudly on his desk without telling us where he *really* got that from).
Most developers (and others who enter the game industry) are hardcore gamers. Iwata's first speech "Heart of the Gamer" criticized this by asking "Are we just making games for ourselves?" The Oliver Twins have said the same thing that you must make games for more than yourself.
But a more important factor is that the game industry is so intertwined with the Hollywood business model is that they believe the cinematic experience is IDENTICAL to the gaming experience. It, of course, isn't. So the PS3 (or 360) being a more cinematic console that hooks up to huge HD tv sets and surround sounds, they see it as the next step to gaming (since it is updating its cinema).
Wii is not about cinema. They looked at Wii Sports and went, "OMG! What IS this? A tech demo!? Haha, what a horrible console!" And they keep dogging the Wii only through the prism of cinema. "The Wii does not do HD!" "The Wii does not have HDMI!" "The Wii does not fully integrate with home theaters!" Since they believe cinema gaming is ALL GAMING, they say, "LOL, Wii is teh fad." They actually believe the trends in cinema (such as HD tv sets) are the same as trends in gaming.
It wasn't too long ago that arcade gaming was seen as the standard of all gaming. All the consoles tried to be like arcade machines. And before that, Dungeons and Dragons, boards games, and books, were seen as the standard of gaming. The point is that gaming doesn't "evolve" to a higher and higher ponit. It has cycles and changes to something else. All entertainment is novelty. After a decade, it changes.
As the Wii's success continues, many of these developers are saying, "Screw this! I am just going to work in the movie studios!" They cannot imagine gaming NOT being cinematic. As for someone who hates games that try to be like movies and game designers who think they are Speilbergs, this is the best thing that has happened to the gaming industry since the introduction of the NES.
Enthusiast press should stick to being game critics and leave the business stuff to... well... business people. Video game business is extremely seasonal. Software sales peak during the Holidays and declines during the first of the year. Everyone knows this.
Kohler could have made a news story that read: "Software for all next-gen consoles down since end of 2006!" This is why I believe his blog entry on it is an intended joke.
Warcraft 3 was about the BATTLES (using your hero, items, and units precisely in battles) that took precedence over production and holding parts of the map. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft were more about production. If you got good amount of production going, you could just throw your units into the enemy lines endlessly (which was kinda fun).
I learned to love Warcraft 3 due to the top replays (that taught me how to really play the game and stop getting frustrated that I couldn't play it like Warcraft 2/Starcraft). But a more significant problem was the changing of the lore. Orcs were fun in Warcraft 1 and 2 because they were bad and evil. Humans vs. Orcs were fun. Now, Orcs acted like Native Americans and tried to be 'noble' and all. Sorry, no. And who liked the lore of the Night Elves?
We'll have to see what direction Blizzard takes Starcraft 2. Hopefully, it will be like the first Starcraft and they won't change the dark themes of the game.
Actually, Microsoft is still taking a loss on making Xbox 360s. The reason why the losses decreased in this fiscal year is because Microsoft has manufactured LESS Xbox 360s (shipped only half a million). Less 360s to manufacture meant less money lost.
Xbox 360 is completely dead in Japan. It has a non-existant presence throughout all of Europe except for the UK where it is doing OK. While it is common to mock the Playstation 3, the PS3, like the Gamecube of last generation, is at least selling more evenly throughout the world. For whatever reason, Microsoft cannot sell the Xbox and Xbox 360 to non-English markets. Why this is, I have no idea.
I would say they made a system based on HOW PEOPLE ACT. For years, I've seen people jump up and down or swarm to the side with game controllers. Also, most people don't have that much time (especially for 300 hour games). Most people aren't interested in making their hands do a seven finger dance on a dual shock just to play a game so they give up. But with the Wii controller, they are more likely to give it a try.
One of Miyamoto's secrets is that he is a brilliant analyzer. He watches how people play and reacts to them. At the last GDC, he admitted to changing games based on watching how people play them.
Also, the entertainment industry is based on surprise. It's ridiculous to ask someone what surprises them. This might be why so many people despise formulaic movies (and games) since they offer no real surprise.
It is more likely the PS3 and Xbox 360 can co-exist. Both have similiar philosophies with the systems and both place emphasis on graphics. Both share multi-platform games.
The Wii is a classic use of 'disruption' technology. A disruption occurs when a cheaper product introduces new technology to make doing the current job (of what the industrys' products are supposed to do) easier and/or better. The 'disrupted' products end up shriveling up in the marketplace. (Did the DS disrupt the handheld market? Is the PSP co-existing nicely with the DS? Rather, PSP got a price drop and is fighting for its life. How is this happening if DS was no threat to it?)
If the Wii continues to sell and sell, then the Wii-mote becomes the standard controller for video games. If the Wii keeps on selling, then the Wii will be seen as THE defacto standard video game system and the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be seen as ancient systems. A disruptive technology can be very nasty and literally change the landscape of the market.
Why did the PS3 get so much flak when it was launched? Probably because the PS3 launched at the same time as the Wii so the mainstream press and the market compared the two (and they slammed the PS3). Even now, the Xbox 360 is coming under increasing scrutiny. Microsoft is lowering shipping forecasts (360 sales did drop).
If the Wii is massively successful, then the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be hurt and the future of the console-as-meda-top-box will be essentially dead. The Wii is exactly in the position where the NES was twenty years ago. The NES disrupted the marketplace on such a scale that game centric computers got cut off at the knees. The NES pad replaced the joystick and gaming returned to the TV and away from keyboards and monitors.
Here's an example: do you think most people will want to play tennis games on the Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii? The answer is Wii because Wii Tennis re-defined video-game tennis. What about bowling? What about golf? Etc. etc. Soon, the Wii will 'alter' most game types and it will appear that Wii is the superior system for them (such as with tennis games). Most of the Wii stuff has, so far, been early launch or filler stuff, but the big stuff will come. What happens if Wii disrupts the FPS? What happens to Xbox 360 then? What if Wii disrupts all sports games and many action games?
Wii will become a massive problem to Sony and Microsoft, but I don't think they realize it yet.
It is amusing that when someone sees the NPD for March of 259k systems sold for Wii, some people try to create weird explanations...
-Sudden production problems! -Nintendo artificially holding them to drive up demand! -Nintendo artificially holding them because of the end of the fiscal quarter!
And so on.
But instead of focusing on the NPD numbers, take a step back and examine the GLOBAL sales for the Wii. While shipments of Wii DROPPED in North America during March, is that true for the entire world? No. In fact, an INCREASE of Wii systems were shipped to Europe (who has been severely undersupplied so far).
Why on Earth would Nintendo allocate more Wii systems for Europe? And why would Nintendo choose March of all months to do this?
It was because the Playstation 3 was launching in Europe in March.
More Wii systems were sent to Europe to, obviously, not lose any Wii buyers to the PS3 launch craze. Now that the PS3 launch is over, the unit allocation will probably return back to what it has been.
BTW, the Wii sales rate is faster than any other console made. Ever. Why do people keep saying Nintendo is "holding back" or "not producing" them?
What should be looked at is global sales rather than just sales in America (what is next? Are we just going to examine sales in a single state?). Xbox 360 is bombing hard in Japan and in most of Europe (outside the UK). PS3 got outsold by the GBA this month in America, is consistently selling around 14,000 a week in Japan at the same level the six year old PS2 is, and is already four million behind the Wii. It is obvious that the PS3 will probably never catch up to the Wii and that the Wii will overcome Xbox 360 worldwide sales in a matter of months, not years.
Some say that GTA 4, Halo, and Final Fantasy 13s (plural) will rocket the PS3 and Xbox 360 to heights unknown. Halo 1 and Halo 2 managed to get the original Xbox to barely outsell the Gamecube. Two GTA games didn't resurrect the PSP. And Final Fantasy isn't as big as it used to be as sales peaked around 8 and have been steadily declining.
Old franchises (unless they are totally re-invented) are never killer apps to future generations. The killer apps of this generation will be new games that come out of nowhere. It was Nintendogs, not Mario Kart, Brain Age, not Tetris, that shot the DS to the stratosphere. And the reason why the Wii is popular now is not Zelda but Wii Sports.
Anyway, a candid examination of global sales will reveal only a change in allocation of units, not a decrease in shipping or production.
Just because one makes tons of money in one sector doesn't mean you have a viable business model in the other. Sony making money off of TVs doesen't excuse the PS3 problems, for example. Even IBM makes tons of money but they still lost relevance (which appears what Microsoft is losing).
Also, it remains to be seen whether Microsoft can succeed in a market defined by consumer choice. Most people do not choose Windows; they are tethered into a user end agreement for buying any PC.
Anyone who believes losing billions of dollars is a good *move*, I feel sorry you. Such a 'success' would destroy any other business.
The silver lining (and end objective) would be the implosion of Sony's video game business. Only in that context could losing so much money be seen as "worth it" for a defense stratategy against Sony's encroachment.
Sometimes an NPD month is four weeks versus five weeks. February was a four week month I believe.
As for the low March numbers, this is likely due to the end of Nintendo's fiscal year (where the last of the original 6 million are shipped). April's NPD should be considerably higher.
Those 2d computer games were based on board games. The 2d console games were based on arcade games.
The major problem with 3d games is that they tried to become cinematic experiences. The game industry then began to imitate the Hollywood business model (and they complain about skyrocketing costs!?).
3d gaming was good for the FPS and any game using the first person perspective. But 3d gaming really saved racing games. Before 3d, racing games were in a top down perspective (where you could hardly see the road) or from the back in a 'Pole Position' type view which looked corny.
But other than that, I agree with you about 3d gaming making games less fun. From observing how young people play 3d gamers, they don't really PLAY them, they prefer to "soak" into them like a hot tub, to immerse themselves in the 'environment' and all. It is entirely a cinematic experience for them.
We, old schoolers, play games simply TO PLAY. But they, the new schoolers, play to FINISH THE STORY. We used to jump from one game back to another. They just keep one game in their system and tend to play it until they beat it (and then toss it aside for a long while and maynot ever play it again). We loved hard games and bragged, "I got to level 5! I got to level 5!" They love easy games that are LONG and they say, "I have put in 30 hours already!"
Listen to PS3 and Xbox 360 gamers for a moment. They are obsessed with immersiveness, of creating an electronic bath for them to "soak up". They look at the old school games and shrivel with horror. "How could you be immersed in that!?" To them, games are not meant to be played but only to be *felt*.
Novelty of the controller will wear off? That people will get tired of "inferior" hardware? Twenty years ago, people said the same exact thing of the NES.
When the NES came out, 16-bit gaming was done on game centric computers (PS3 and Xbox 360 are considered game centric computers). The NES sported a new controller that disrupted the joystick, had lots of mini-games (Duck Hunt and World Track Meet come to mind), and made gaming more accessible (not everyone wants to play at the computer). NES was marketed as a family friendly console and, one of the bonuses, was that it was seen as a virtual arcade machine (where one could play all the great arcade games of past and present) which is similiar to how the Virtual Console is percieved today. NES kept selling out, year after year, in both Japan and America just as the Wii is doing now.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, said the NES's early success was a novelty of a 'toy' and that all gaming would return back to the game centric computers. It never did. Electronic Arts refused to support the NES until investors threatened to fire Trip Hawkins.
Wii is still selling out six months after launch. Yet, it is still a 'fad'. I guess the DS Lite is still a 'fad' and 'novelty' too, huh?
The entire point of being a hardware maker in the console business is to have everyone pay YOU to put stuff on your system. No one is going to license the Wii controller, at least not the other consoles.
Did Sony license rumble for the PS3? No. They would rather sell the PS3 without rumble before giving in. Platform makers want everyone to pay THEM, not the other way around.:-)
"How can the Revolution sell without HD visuals?" "There will be a new version released two years later. Just like how Nintendo puts out new versions of its handhelds." "And what about that motion controller?" "You cannot sell a console just on teh strength of a controller! Nintendo is just being desperate."
"There's room for innovation here, but moving that controller around -- it's something that's not mainstream for most games. It's tough because sometimes you move the controller, and you don't [mean] to fly into the ground. You just want to put the controller down. People aren't that good at totally standing still. Even pilots actually sit in a chair when they do their flying."
**One Year Later**
"Microsoft! Are you going to copy the Wii's controller?" "Eh? Uh? We dunno! We are looking into it." "So what else are you going to do?" "Well, we have this new Elite model Xbox 360 for you to buy! Putting out new hardware is fun!" Someone comes in and says, "Damn it, Nintendo! Make more Wiis! I can't find them anywhere!"
Can we now admit that Nintendo made some very smart business moves with the Wii without being called "zOMG fAnBOy!!1!"? It is not so much that Wiis are outselling the other systems, but that the Wii is making profit while doing it. Where are the game journalists and 'analysts' who were proclaiming 'Revolution' would sell only around ten million units in its lifetime? Where are the people who poo-poohed the Wii's controller at the beginning? Oh, that's right. When Nintendo succeeds, the goal posts are moved further back. They began saying, "Is it a gimmick?" to "Is it a fad?" to "It is only selling because it is cheap!" After the DS did its magic, these same fools said, "This success we will never see again!" Then comes the Wii that is selling even stronger.
Nintendo went from a 'lose, lose' situation to a 'win, win'. Microsoft wondering whether or not to put in motion controls is a sign that a revolution is occuring. I bet that Microsoft's next system (along with the controller) imitates the Wii as best it can.
In the world of politics (such as presidential campaigns), there are candidates who foolishly believe that winning news cycles is the key to winning elections. Of course, the key to winning elections is campaigning effectively through your territory and talking sense to voters rather than nonsense to newspapers.
Ars Technica is saying that this is 'bad' because Eidos ruined a 'good' news cycle for the PS3 (GDC announcements). But, of course, good or bad news cycles won't make or break the PS3. What will make or break the PS3 is how it plays to the market (its "voters").
Actually, this obsession to win the 'news cycle' is part of the problem. Sony used cgi to create false hype at E3 2005. They were winning news cycles left and right. Does that matter today? No. Contrast this to the Wii which was constantly mocked and was 'losing' news cycles all the way up to E3 2006. When people could actually play the systems (the market itself), perception fast changed.
The future of game systems do not revolve around news cycles but around Joe Six-Pack and his market. If Nintendo suddenly had a bad news cycle ("Iwata turns into a chicken and flaps like a duck!"), it wouldn't change the market. Journalists need to realize that news cycles are not reality.
The reason why there is a backlash
on
The Elite's Sour Side
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yamauchi (paraphrasing) has said, "What many companies do not understand about the video game business is that the software is the product, not the hardware. People buy the hardware only to get to the software." This solves the mystery as to why people moan and complain of new hardware (or buying more expensive hardware) but they were not complaining at all buying $70 games in the 16-bit generation. The amount of money spent on software totally eclipses what is spent on hardware with multiple $50 (and now $60) products. Just buying four games puts you to $200!
The image of the games industry is that the consoles are the main product with software revolving around it. Rather, it is the other way around. It is no coincidence that people always complain about the hardware (since it drains entertainment dollars they would rather pay for games).
Look at the pattern of outcry:
-PS3 announced at $599 -Multiple versions of Nintendo handhelds. -GBA dongle thing to listen to headphones. -Purchasing link cables and additional GBAs to play 'linked' Gamecube games. -Xbox 360 failure rates -Purchasing all the Wii controllers (and there are many!). -16-bit (and earlier) gamers complaining how today's consoles don't come with a bundled game like they used to.
No one likes spending entertainment dollars on hardware (since you cannot play the hardware). Judging from sales results, no one is buying a PS3 or Xbox 360 based on its non-game functions of the hardware. The hardware sales revolve around the software sales instead of the other way around. Video games are about the software experience, not the hardware experience.
Anyone remember the very popular IBM mainframe called the 360? It was released in multiple versions and was structured that someone would buy a cheaper version and upgrade if their needs warranted it. This appears to be exactly what Microsoft intends. But why on Earth is Microsoft following the IBM mainframe model for their living room top box?
(Also, when the Wii launched everyone said it would have multiple versions especially a HD capable Wii in the near future. Yet, ironically, the consoles coming out with multiple versions are the Xbox 360 and the PS3 [who is rumored to have its own elite model coming soon as well].)
"How many Wii owners would identify themselves as part of the "gaming population"? Moreover, how many Wii-owning gamers are still satisfied with the console now that the hysteria over it is starting to wear off? The sales of the Wii don't really say much about gamers' tastes, especially since they're a mere fraction of the sales of the PS2, or even of the XBox and GameCube."
Wii is currently outselling the PS2 at a similiar time frame. When you consider that the PS2 had no competition (Xbox and Gamecube would be released a year later) while the Wii has two very strong competitors (including the PS2) and that the Wii is severely undersupplied in all markets, the Wii sales snowball is at the very beginning.
"As for your argument concerning the PS2's processing power, I would submit that the PS2 wasn't nearly as weak as the Wii is by comparison. Though the PS2 was clearly less capable graphically than the other two systems, this was accepted as a natural consequence of coming out a year earlier, and most people considered it to be a minor problem and an easy tradeoff in exchange for a better game lineup. The Wii has none of these excuses to fall back on."
The gulf between Wii and PS3 is the same as the DS and PSP.
Everyone is forgetting about the NES. The gaming platforms when the NES came out were game centric computers who were 16 bit. Let's look at the similarities:
NES: Family focused. WII: Family focused.
NES: New controller (D-pad) that replaced the joystick. WII: New controller (motion sensing) that is replacing dual sticks.
NES: 8-bit while game centric computers were 16-bit. WII: Not HD while game centric computers pursued it.
NES: Awesome retro-gaming experience with ports of arcade classics (former Atari gamers' favorite titles) from Pac-Man, Xevious, Donkey Kong, and all the rest. A Virtual Arcade. WII: Awesome retro-gaming experience with the NES, SNES, Genesis, Turbografix-16, and N64 games available (many former gamers' favorites). A Virtual Console.
NES: Gimmick mini-games like Duck Hunt and World Track Meet. WII: Gimmick mini-games like Wii Play and Wii Music.
NES: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors. WII: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors.
NES: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults. WII: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults.
NES: Competitors believed gaming would forever evolve into a more computer orientated platform. A machine should do everything and shouldn't just play games. Machines costed $300-600. WII: Competitors believed game-only consoles were dead and they would further evolve into a platform for everything digital. These machines costed $300-600.
NES: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out in Japan and America due to a growing market. WII: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out everywhere due to a growing market.
NES: Excite Bike an early NES title that became a cult hit. WII: Excite Truck an early WII title that became a cult hit.
NES: Early games, unused to the new controller, had some control issues. WII: Early games, unused to the new controller, have some control issues.
NES: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'game and watch'. WII: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'DS'.
NES: The game industry thought NES would fail. When it didn't, they thought it would collapse and everyone would return to the game centric computers (Electronic Arts and Trip Hawkins thought this) WII: The game industry thought Nintendo would fail. When it didn't, they are now thinking the Wii sales will collapse (i.e. novelty will 'fade') and everyone will return to the game centric computers of PS3 and Xbox 360.
There are so many similarities with the NES and WII that one can go on and on forever.
An owner of a last gen console arrives at Console Hut. While he examines the new consoles, a salesman approaches. He points to the Xbox 360 and asks about it.
"It has three processors for horsepower with high definition graphics capability. With a subscription of $50 a year, your game vehicle has access to Live where you can talk to other Xbox 360s. If you want to watch HD-DVDs, you need to buy an add-on."
"Do I get to drive down new roads?"
"Oh no! You only go down the same roads you could with your previous console. The difference is now it has three processors! And high definition capability! You go down the same roads faster with clearer and better windows (resolutions)."
"How about the PS3? Do I go down new roads with that?"
"No. But the console has awesome horsepower of the CELL processor! While it is more expensive than the Xbox 360, it has Blu-Ray and other features. You do so much with the PS3!"
"Except you are stuck driving down the same exact roads..." (sighs)
"Well, there is a console, the Wii, you probably wouldn't like." said the salesman.
"Why is that?"
"Well, it uses a similiar engine as your previous consoles. It isn't high definition. It simply doesn't have the POWER of the last two consoles and none of its extra perks. But it does do something the other consoles do not: you get to drive down roads no one has ever seen before. No one knows what type of games will appear on that machine. The future of its games is going into a new territory where gaming hasn't gone before..."
"I'LL TAKE IT!!!"
PS3 is not just a mercedes. It is a mercedes going down the same exact gaming road, seeing the same sights, only with more horsepower and better windows. While the Wii is an economy car, it has the ability to deliver new experiences.
Since entertainment is dependent on surprise, it is no wonder people prefer the new and unknown road.
Wii is currently outselling the PS2 at a similiar time frame.
DS is selling near Japanese levels now. DS numbers can no longer be accounted for the uptick in re-design and Christmas; it has truly caught on (and this is before Pokemon).
Nintendogs has sold over four million in the US and keeps selling strongly each month.
Twilight Princess is getting closer to outselling Wind Waker in the US.
If you combine America + Canada + Japan PS3 sales for the month of February, you get a measely 213,133.
In summary:
DS- Japanese DS fever has finally arrived at America. The upcoming Pokemon will send sales skyrocketing even further.
Wii- Supply restrained yet it is selling better than the PS2. This thing is a monster.
PS2- Still cruising along. Its sales show how much disinterest there is in high definition games.
Xbox 360- Steady but weak sales. The Xbox 360, despite being on the market for well over a year, has not outsold the PS2 yet in America. People calling 360 sales 'good' are delusional.
PSP- Horrible sales. Unless Sony does something, retailers might start removing the system.
GBA- Pure profit for Nintendo.
PS3- Abysmal.
Console war is over. PS3 is beginning to get too far behind in Japan and America. Xbox 360 is no contest since their first year of sales were weak and Xbox 360 is not selling too strongly in worldwide. Wii and DS are selling very strongly WORLDWIDE.
I wonder if any analyst (like Pachter) will still say the PS3 will become 'leader' now.
One person's opinion is not a news story. Don't attack me, the messenger, (i.e. accusing me with some agenda) by pointing out there was no reason for this column to be linked to at all as it was just one person's feelings (with no facts behind it). What is next? Is Slashdot going to link to blog entries?
My agenda is high quality at Slashdot. There are PLENTY of gaming news going on each and everyday without wasting a link to a column about one person's feelings. If your feelings 'align' with his, that doesn't make the column any more 'factual' since there are no facts involved at all. Slashdot linking to a single person saying he doesn't use his Mac, doesn't use his PS3, no longer uses his Toaster, etc. would be just as worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Every industry has its pros and cons that become a feature of its landscape. For example, anyone who goes into the oil industry should not be surprised to learn politicians bad mouthing it whenever gas prises rise as well as the 'Congress investigation' that occurs pratically every summer. One can blame Congress but it has become a feature of the landscape of that market. In a similar way, console companies cannot complain about other companies copying them since that has become part of the landscape of the market.
I am amazed that people are amazed Jack Thompsons and anti-game politicians exist. Where have you guys been? Politicians have been complaining about video games ever since Death Ralley and Custer's Last Stand. They have always complained about the game industry.
And, surprise surprise, twenty years from now they will still be complaining about the games industry and passing 'legislation' about it. The reason why they do this is purely political.
The Game Industry has a choice. It can either put a target on itself for all these politicians to target or they can self-regulate themselves so the politicians go away. Businesses do not win when they go against the government (as government not only has infinite money, it can alter the laws as they see fit).
The reason why Nintendo and Sony are saying there will never be an AO game on their system is not because of "zOMG censorship!" but because anyone who has studied the game industry knows the price these adult only games have. They can literally destroy the console in perception.
You might say, "The market demands an AO game," but, actually, it doesn't. The market becomes quite hostile to these AO games. If AO games were what people really wanted, retailers would stock them and Nintendo and Sony would want them on the console. Retailers (including Wal-Mart) stock other AO material and Nintendo had no problem making love hotels.
The problem is not the ESRB or Nintendo or Sony. The "problem" is ignorance from a European designer (not aware of the long pattern of AO game issues in America and elseware). But also the "problem" is the market itself. Porn sells which is why the Internet is filled with porn. But AO games do not sell which is why you rarely see them.
The market overcomes censorship and even self-regulation. This is why we see the equivalent of soft porn (with foul language) on TV during, what used to be known, as the family hours. Perhaps people ought to be asking about the lack of AO games is simply because the market doesn't want it (who really wants to put down money to play games about homosexuals?). Every time someone says "But its' art!" is almost always when the market doesn't want it (but the developer wants to make it anyway because they believe they are "artists").
The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were mostly designed with hardcore gamers in mind.
Hardcore said, "We want bigger, more epic, games."
So the games kept getting bigger and more epic.
Hardcore said, "I want my game console to take advantage of my new HD console and uber speakers."
Lo and behold, those consoles do just that.
There is no pleasing the hardcore. All they do is whine, whine, and whine. The reason why consoles now cost $400-$600 dollars is because of the hardcore and their constant demands. They are driving the bread and butter of the industry, REGULAR gamers away. The market was already shrinking in Japan and beginning to stagnate in the West. These expensive HD systems would have shrunk the market. As the market shrinks and costs esculate, well, listen to what Cliffy Blezinsky said in December 2005:
"If video game pricing continues to go up, we will crash." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1515122/20051128
Xbox 360? Let's see...
-Estimated 33% units are defective (probably 100% since it is a design flaw. Not a question of IF the console will fail but WHEN).
-N'gai Croal of Newsweek has called on Microsoft to recall the system.
-Xbox 360 has flopped in Japan.
-Xbox 360 is doing poorly in Europe especially outside the UK.
-Xbox 360 can't even outsell the PS2 in the United States. And PS2 is like six years old!
-Xbox 360 is tracking near the original Xbox sales. And Xbox was a failure as it sold around as much as the Gamecube.
I would not call the above 'doing well' in any sense.
The only silver lining is that Xbox 360 is outselling the PS3. But the difference between those systems is only around four or five million. With Microsoft dead in Japan and low presence in Europe, PS3 will likely surpass it in the long term.
I'm not being 'hateful'. I am trying to be 'truthful'. Game journalists are all hardcore gamers. They have not been expressing how really 'bad' things are currently going for Microsoft and Sony.
The purest gamer are these new casual players who are only looking for fun. They don't make top ten lists. They don't put photos of Japanese vending machines on a blog. They don't try to analyze the industry. They don't try to imagine games as a type of 'high art' like literature.
They are much more picky with their time. It is easier to make a game for a hardcore player than a casual player. As you said, most people in the games industry are hardcore players. So all they have to do is make a game for themselves. But that is the route to failure.
Movies began to suck when Hollywood began making movies for *themselves* rather than the mass population.
Most books suck because the writer will write for himself/herself instead of for a mass population.
Games began to suck when programmers and all began making games for themselves. Iwata's first speech as president was the "Heart of the Gamer" where he asks, "Are we just making games for ourselves?" One of the Oliver twins echoed the same thing telling todays game designers that they must make games outside their own narrow interests.
And Miyamoto is not a hardcore gamer. He is probably a bored gamer. If people are tired of playing the same games with fancier graphics, don't you think guys like Miyamoto are tired of making them? For all we know, part of the reason why Wii was made was because Nintendo got bored.
Console gaming is supposed to cater to the casuals. Atari 2600 appealed to everyone. The NES was a family console. Only as time went on, the consoles catered more and more to the hardcore. They were the fools with no lives spending fortunes on getting every system, every hot game, buying new home theaters and tvs just for their game console, and even willing to pay half a grand for a game console. Sony and Microsoft view hardcore gamers as 'useful idiots' where they can trojan in all their REAL non-gaming crap from Blu-Ray to downloadable movies.
Nintendo is the true gaming hardware company right now. It is Sony and Microsoft pursuing the non-game route. Hell, they don't even call their systems "game consoles". To them, they call it 'computer entertainment systems'.
It was the casual games that defined this industry. Casual Pong made this industry, not hardcore Computer Space. Pac-Man was huge. Beserk was not. Super Mario Brothers was huge. The 'epic games' on the computers then were not. Tetris was huge while other games, with far superior graphics, were not. Wii Sports is huge while Gears of War was nothing but a fad. And don't get started on computer gaming with huge hits like The Sims or Myst.
Casual gamers are the true axis in which this industry revolves around. Hardcore are not in the center but on the far edges.
2004- When the DS was revealed, they laughed at it. PSP would destroy it, and Nintendo would go third party.
2005- When the "Revolution" was revealed, they laughed at it. "Nintendo cannot compete." Meanwhile, they went 'ONE CONSOLE FUTURE' to the Sony Killzone 2 trailer and Microsoft's Xbox 360 showing.
2005- (TGS) When Nintendo revealed the Wii controller, they laughed at it. They compared it to the Powerglove and that it would flop. They hailed Xbox 360 launch as start of 'high definition' generation.
2006- When the Wii name is announced, hardcore gamers laughed and considered the Revolution to be 'dead' on arrival. After all, who would play the 'Wii' when there were much cooler names like Playstation 3 and Xbox 360?
2006- Nintendo's excellent E3 showing was not worth thinking about, they said. After all, Nintendo fans go ballistic on every Nintendo E3 presence. PS3's brand name would sail it past very fast. And while PS3 was expensive, you got so much value in it! Wii wasn't future proofed.
2006- Wii's $250 price shocked them and they declared it too expensive for any reasonable person to buy. The bundling of Wii Sports would destroy third party software sales. Don't bother pre-ordering since you can walk in the afternoon and buy it anytime.
2007- Wii is still selling out. Obviously, it must be a fad. A novelty. Hardcore gamers believe they are the mainstream after all. PS3 is not 'dead'. It is just 'slow' in starting. It will overtake the market in time. It just has too.
2007- Wii Balance Board? "Nintendo is DEAD as a gaming company!" they proclaim. "I don't even turn on my Wii anymore," they keep telling us. Obviously, the end of Wii had come and everyone will rush to get Xbox 360s and PS3s.
The pattern shows that Hardcore Gamers have been 100% wrong on Nintendo ever since the DS. Why should we listen to them now? They're wrong then, and they are wrong today.
Hardcore gamers say, "I understand Nintendo trying to expand the audience. But why don't they listen to us?" It is because hardcore gamers ARE the problem with gaming. Microsoft and Sony listened to them and look at where that got them. The more Nintendo defies the hardcore, the more their success.
What is harder to make? An invention or a business model? Since there are more working inventions than working business models, it is definately the latter. It is salesmen and entrepreneurs that change the world, not cranky inventors despite whatever mythology one believes. As nerds, we like to think our "intelligence" and "creativity" is the mover and shaker of things. It isn't. This is why I suspect Woz sees himself in Baer.
Bushnell was responsible for making the video-game arcade as well as popularizing the home console. Baer was not. In terms of the beginner of the video-game industry as a working, incredible profitable business, Bushnell is responsible. Bushnell's video-game products SOLD, Baer's video-game products did not. And Baer had the home video-game market completely to himself for many years and still couldn't make it work.
Baer has been suffering sour grapes for a long time. Baer should learn from Steve Russell, the inventor of Spacewar, when he said that, "If I didn't make Spacewar, someone else would. I just happened to get there first." Baer got there first but he (and his company) lacked the ability to sell the product.
The time the article spent trying to 'justify' Baer over Spacewar and Bushnell really indicates how weak Baer's importance is. If you have to base so much of the article on reasons of justification, then that justification probably doesn't exist. Movers and shakers are self-evident and need no lofty defense.
Speaking about beginning the game business, Bushnell could have easily started the PC business. It has to burn him up that Steve Jobs was his employee, that put Jobs underneath his wing, and could have been a major shareholder in Apple. Bushnell could have been Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
But Baer? No. History will remember Baer. But Baer's insistence that he is the fountainhead of video-games is as absurd as Steve Russell saying he is the fountainhead of game arcades. Russell has the humility to admit that he wasn't, that if he didn't make Spacewar than someone else would have. Baer lacks that humility (and while chastizing that Bushnell "stole" his tennis game, he sits the Simon proudly on his desk without telling us where he *really* got that from).
Most developers (and others who enter the game industry) are hardcore gamers. Iwata's first speech "Heart of the Gamer" criticized this by asking "Are we just making games for ourselves?" The Oliver Twins have said the same thing that you must make games for more than yourself.
But a more important factor is that the game industry is so intertwined with the Hollywood business model is that they believe the cinematic experience is IDENTICAL to the gaming experience. It, of course, isn't. So the PS3 (or 360) being a more cinematic console that hooks up to huge HD tv sets and surround sounds, they see it as the next step to gaming (since it is updating its cinema).
Wii is not about cinema. They looked at Wii Sports and went, "OMG! What IS this? A tech demo!? Haha, what a horrible console!" And they keep dogging the Wii only through the prism of cinema. "The Wii does not do HD!" "The Wii does not have HDMI!" "The Wii does not fully integrate with home theaters!" Since they believe cinema gaming is ALL GAMING, they say, "LOL, Wii is teh fad." They actually believe the trends in cinema (such as HD tv sets) are the same as trends in gaming.
It wasn't too long ago that arcade gaming was seen as the standard of all gaming. All the consoles tried to be like arcade machines. And before that, Dungeons and Dragons, boards games, and books, were seen as the standard of gaming. The point is that gaming doesn't "evolve" to a higher and higher ponit. It has cycles and changes to something else. All entertainment is novelty. After a decade, it changes.
As the Wii's success continues, many of these developers are saying, "Screw this! I am just going to work in the movie studios!" They cannot imagine gaming NOT being cinematic. As for someone who hates games that try to be like movies and game designers who think they are Speilbergs, this is the best thing that has happened to the gaming industry since the introduction of the NES.
Enthusiast press should stick to being game critics and leave the business stuff to... well... business people. Video game business is extremely seasonal. Software sales peak during the Holidays and declines during the first of the year. Everyone knows this.
Kohler could have made a news story that read: "Software for all next-gen consoles down since end of 2006!" This is why I believe his blog entry on it is an intended joke.
Warcraft 3 was about the BATTLES (using your hero, items, and units precisely in battles) that took precedence over production and holding parts of the map. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft were more about production. If you got good amount of production going, you could just throw your units into the enemy lines endlessly (which was kinda fun).
I learned to love Warcraft 3 due to the top replays (that taught me how to really play the game and stop getting frustrated that I couldn't play it like Warcraft 2/Starcraft). But a more significant problem was the changing of the lore. Orcs were fun in Warcraft 1 and 2 because they were bad and evil. Humans vs. Orcs were fun. Now, Orcs acted like Native Americans and tried to be 'noble' and all. Sorry, no. And who liked the lore of the Night Elves?
We'll have to see what direction Blizzard takes Starcraft 2. Hopefully, it will be like the first Starcraft and they won't change the dark themes of the game.
Actually, Microsoft is still taking a loss on making Xbox 360s. The reason why the losses decreased in this fiscal year is because Microsoft has manufactured LESS Xbox 360s (shipped only half a million). Less 360s to manufacture meant less money lost.
Xbox 360 is completely dead in Japan. It has a non-existant presence throughout all of Europe except for the UK where it is doing OK. While it is common to mock the Playstation 3, the PS3, like the Gamecube of last generation, is at least selling more evenly throughout the world. For whatever reason, Microsoft cannot sell the Xbox and Xbox 360 to non-English markets. Why this is, I have no idea.
I would say they made a system based on HOW PEOPLE ACT. For years, I've seen people jump up and down or swarm to the side with game controllers. Also, most people don't have that much time (especially for 300 hour games). Most people aren't interested in making their hands do a seven finger dance on a dual shock just to play a game so they give up. But with the Wii controller, they are more likely to give it a try.
One of Miyamoto's secrets is that he is a brilliant analyzer. He watches how people play and reacts to them. At the last GDC, he admitted to changing games based on watching how people play them.
Also, the entertainment industry is based on surprise. It's ridiculous to ask someone what surprises them. This might be why so many people despise formulaic movies (and games) since they offer no real surprise.
It is more likely the PS3 and Xbox 360 can co-exist. Both have similiar philosophies with the systems and both place emphasis on graphics. Both share multi-platform games.
The Wii is a classic use of 'disruption' technology. A disruption occurs when a cheaper product introduces new technology to make doing the current job (of what the industrys' products are supposed to do) easier and/or better. The 'disrupted' products end up shriveling up in the marketplace. (Did the DS disrupt the handheld market? Is the PSP co-existing nicely with the DS? Rather, PSP got a price drop and is fighting for its life. How is this happening if DS was no threat to it?)
If the Wii continues to sell and sell, then the Wii-mote becomes the standard controller for video games. If the Wii keeps on selling, then the Wii will be seen as THE defacto standard video game system and the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be seen as ancient systems. A disruptive technology can be very nasty and literally change the landscape of the market.
Why did the PS3 get so much flak when it was launched? Probably because the PS3 launched at the same time as the Wii so the mainstream press and the market compared the two (and they slammed the PS3). Even now, the Xbox 360 is coming under increasing scrutiny. Microsoft is lowering shipping forecasts (360 sales did drop).
If the Wii is massively successful, then the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be hurt and the future of the console-as-meda-top-box will be essentially dead. The Wii is exactly in the position where the NES was twenty years ago. The NES disrupted the marketplace on such a scale that game centric computers got cut off at the knees. The NES pad replaced the joystick and gaming returned to the TV and away from keyboards and monitors.
Here's an example: do you think most people will want to play tennis games on the Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii? The answer is Wii because Wii Tennis re-defined video-game tennis. What about bowling? What about golf? Etc. etc. Soon, the Wii will 'alter' most game types and it will appear that Wii is the superior system for them (such as with tennis games). Most of the Wii stuff has, so far, been early launch or filler stuff, but the big stuff will come. What happens if Wii disrupts the FPS? What happens to Xbox 360 then? What if Wii disrupts all sports games and many action games?
Wii will become a massive problem to Sony and Microsoft, but I don't think they realize it yet.
It is amusing that when someone sees the NPD for March of 259k systems sold for Wii, some people try to create weird explanations...
-Sudden production problems!
-Nintendo artificially holding them to drive up demand!
-Nintendo artificially holding them because of the end of the fiscal quarter!
And so on.
But instead of focusing on the NPD numbers, take a step back and examine the GLOBAL sales for the Wii. While shipments of Wii DROPPED in North America during March, is that true for the entire world? No. In fact, an INCREASE of Wii systems were shipped to Europe (who has been severely undersupplied so far).
Why on Earth would Nintendo allocate more Wii systems for Europe? And why would Nintendo choose March of all months to do this?
It was because the Playstation 3 was launching in Europe in March.
More Wii systems were sent to Europe to, obviously, not lose any Wii buyers to the PS3 launch craze. Now that the PS3 launch is over, the unit allocation will probably return back to what it has been.
BTW, the Wii sales rate is faster than any other console made. Ever. Why do people keep saying Nintendo is "holding back" or "not producing" them?
What should be looked at is global sales rather than just sales in America (what is next? Are we just going to examine sales in a single state?). Xbox 360 is bombing hard in Japan and in most of Europe (outside the UK). PS3 got outsold by the GBA this month in America, is consistently selling around 14,000 a week in Japan at the same level the six year old PS2 is, and is already four million behind the Wii. It is obvious that the PS3 will probably never catch up to the Wii and that the Wii will overcome Xbox 360 worldwide sales in a matter of months, not years.
Some say that GTA 4, Halo, and Final Fantasy 13s (plural) will rocket the PS3 and Xbox 360 to heights unknown. Halo 1 and Halo 2 managed to get the original Xbox to barely outsell the Gamecube. Two GTA games didn't resurrect the PSP. And Final Fantasy isn't as big as it used to be as sales peaked around 8 and have been steadily declining.
Old franchises (unless they are totally re-invented) are never killer apps to future generations. The killer apps of this generation will be new games that come out of nowhere. It was Nintendogs, not Mario Kart, Brain Age, not Tetris, that shot the DS to the stratosphere. And the reason why the Wii is popular now is not Zelda but Wii Sports.
Anyway, a candid examination of global sales will reveal only a change in allocation of units, not a decrease in shipping or production.
Just because one makes tons of money in one sector doesn't mean you have a viable business model in the other. Sony making money off of TVs doesen't excuse the PS3 problems, for example. Even IBM makes tons of money but they still lost relevance (which appears what Microsoft is losing).
Also, it remains to be seen whether Microsoft can succeed in a market defined by consumer choice. Most people do not choose Windows; they are tethered into a user end agreement for buying any PC.
Anyone who believes losing billions of dollars is a good *move*, I feel sorry you. Such a 'success' would destroy any other business.
The silver lining (and end objective) would be the implosion of Sony's video game business. Only in that context could losing so much money be seen as "worth it" for a defense stratategy against Sony's encroachment.
Sometimes an NPD month is four weeks versus five weeks. February was a four week month I believe.
As for the low March numbers, this is likely due to the end of Nintendo's fiscal year (where the last of the original 6 million are shipped). April's NPD should be considerably higher.
Those 2d computer games were based on board games. The 2d console games were based on arcade games.
The major problem with 3d games is that they tried to become cinematic experiences. The game industry then began to imitate the Hollywood business model (and they complain about skyrocketing costs!?).
3d gaming was good for the FPS and any game using the first person perspective. But 3d gaming really saved racing games. Before 3d, racing games were in a top down perspective (where you could hardly see the road) or from the back in a 'Pole Position' type view which looked corny.
But other than that, I agree with you about 3d gaming making games less fun. From observing how young people play 3d gamers, they don't really PLAY them, they prefer to "soak" into them like a hot tub, to immerse themselves in the 'environment' and all. It is entirely a cinematic experience for them.
We, old schoolers, play games simply TO PLAY. But they, the new schoolers, play to FINISH THE STORY. We used to jump from one game back to another. They just keep one game in their system and tend to play it until they beat it (and then toss it aside for a long while and maynot ever play it again). We loved hard games and bragged, "I got to level 5! I got to level 5!" They love easy games that are LONG and they say, "I have put in 30 hours already!"
Listen to PS3 and Xbox 360 gamers for a moment. They are obsessed with immersiveness, of creating an electronic bath for them to "soak up". They look at the old school games and shrivel with horror. "How could you be immersed in that!?" To them, games are not meant to be played but only to be *felt*.
Novelty of the controller will wear off? That people will get tired of "inferior" hardware? Twenty years ago, people said the same exact thing of the NES.
When the NES came out, 16-bit gaming was done on game centric computers (PS3 and Xbox 360 are considered game centric computers). The NES sported a new controller that disrupted the joystick, had lots of mini-games (Duck Hunt and World Track Meet come to mind), and made gaming more accessible (not everyone wants to play at the computer). NES was marketed as a family friendly console and, one of the bonuses, was that it was seen as a virtual arcade machine (where one could play all the great arcade games of past and present) which is similiar to how the Virtual Console is percieved today. NES kept selling out, year after year, in both Japan and America just as the Wii is doing now.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, said the NES's early success was a novelty of a 'toy' and that all gaming would return back to the game centric computers. It never did. Electronic Arts refused to support the NES until investors threatened to fire Trip Hawkins.
Wii is still selling out six months after launch. Yet, it is still a 'fad'. I guess the DS Lite is still a 'fad' and 'novelty' too, huh?
The entire point of being a hardware maker in the console business is to have everyone pay YOU to put stuff on your system. No one is going to license the Wii controller, at least not the other consoles.
:-)
Did Sony license rumble for the PS3? No. They would rather sell the PS3 without rumble before giving in. Platform makers want everyone to pay THEM, not the other way around.
*One Year Ago*
2 0&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000010
"How can the Revolution sell without HD visuals?"
"There will be a new version released two years later. Just like how Nintendo puts out new versions of its handhelds."
"And what about that motion controller?"
"You cannot sell a console just on teh strength of a controller! Nintendo is just being desperate."
Bill Gates would say: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151063
"There's room for innovation here, but moving that controller around -- it's something that's not mainstream for most games. It's tough because sometimes you move the controller, and you don't [mean] to fly into the ground. You just want to put the controller down. People aren't that good at totally standing still. Even pilots actually sit in a chair when they do their flying."
**One Year Later**
"Microsoft! Are you going to copy the Wii's controller?"
"Eh? Uh? We dunno! We are looking into it."
"So what else are you going to do?"
"Well, we have this new Elite model Xbox 360 for you to buy! Putting out new hardware is fun!"
Someone comes in and says, "Damn it, Nintendo! Make more Wiis! I can't find them anywhere!"
Bill Gates says: http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=149
"Nintendo is our competition!"
Can we now admit that Nintendo made some very smart business moves with the Wii without being called "zOMG fAnBOy!!1!"? It is not so much that Wiis are outselling the other systems, but that the Wii is making profit while doing it. Where are the game journalists and 'analysts' who were proclaiming 'Revolution' would sell only around ten million units in its lifetime? Where are the people who poo-poohed the Wii's controller at the beginning? Oh, that's right. When Nintendo succeeds, the goal posts are moved further back. They began saying, "Is it a gimmick?" to "Is it a fad?" to "It is only selling because it is cheap!" After the DS did its magic, these same fools said, "This success we will never see again!" Then comes the Wii that is selling even stronger.
Nintendo went from a 'lose, lose' situation to a 'win, win'. Microsoft wondering whether or not to put in motion controls is a sign that a revolution is occuring. I bet that Microsoft's next system (along with the controller) imitates the Wii as best it can.
In the world of politics (such as presidential campaigns), there are candidates who foolishly believe that winning news cycles is the key to winning elections. Of course, the key to winning elections is campaigning effectively through your territory and talking sense to voters rather than nonsense to newspapers.
Ars Technica is saying that this is 'bad' because Eidos ruined a 'good' news cycle for the PS3 (GDC announcements). But, of course, good or bad news cycles won't make or break the PS3. What will make or break the PS3 is how it plays to the market (its "voters").
Actually, this obsession to win the 'news cycle' is part of the problem. Sony used cgi to create false hype at E3 2005. They were winning news cycles left and right. Does that matter today? No. Contrast this to the Wii which was constantly mocked and was 'losing' news cycles all the way up to E3 2006. When people could actually play the systems (the market itself), perception fast changed.
The future of game systems do not revolve around news cycles but around Joe Six-Pack and his market. If Nintendo suddenly had a bad news cycle ("Iwata turns into a chicken and flaps like a duck!"), it wouldn't change the market. Journalists need to realize that news cycles are not reality.
Yamauchi (paraphrasing) has said, "What many companies do not understand about the video game business is that the software is the product, not the hardware. People buy the hardware only to get to the software." This solves the mystery as to why people moan and complain of new hardware (or buying more expensive hardware) but they were not complaining at all buying $70 games in the 16-bit generation. The amount of money spent on software totally eclipses what is spent on hardware with multiple $50 (and now $60) products. Just buying four games puts you to $200!
The image of the games industry is that the consoles are the main product with software revolving around it. Rather, it is the other way around. It is no coincidence that people always complain about the hardware (since it drains entertainment dollars they would rather pay for games).
Look at the pattern of outcry:
-PS3 announced at $599
-Multiple versions of Nintendo handhelds.
-GBA dongle thing to listen to headphones.
-Purchasing link cables and additional GBAs to play 'linked' Gamecube games.
-Xbox 360 failure rates
-Purchasing all the Wii controllers (and there are many!).
-16-bit (and earlier) gamers complaining how today's consoles don't come with a bundled game like they used to.
No one likes spending entertainment dollars on hardware (since you cannot play the hardware). Judging from sales results, no one is buying a PS3 or Xbox 360 based on its non-game functions of the hardware. The hardware sales revolve around the software sales instead of the other way around. Video games are about the software experience, not the hardware experience.
Anyone remember the very popular IBM mainframe called the 360? It was released in multiple versions and was structured that someone would buy a cheaper version and upgrade if their needs warranted it. This appears to be exactly what Microsoft intends. But why on Earth is Microsoft following the IBM mainframe model for their living room top box?
(Also, when the Wii launched everyone said it would have multiple versions especially a HD capable Wii in the near future. Yet, ironically, the consoles coming out with multiple versions are the Xbox 360 and the PS3 [who is rumored to have its own elite model coming soon as well].)
"How many Wii owners would identify themselves as part of the "gaming population"? Moreover, how many Wii-owning gamers are still satisfied with the console now that the hysteria over it is starting to wear off? The sales of the Wii don't really say much about gamers' tastes, especially since they're a mere fraction of the sales of the PS2, or even of the XBox and GameCube."
Wii is currently outselling the PS2 at a similiar time frame. When you consider that the PS2 had no competition (Xbox and Gamecube would be released a year later) while the Wii has two very strong competitors (including the PS2) and that the Wii is severely undersupplied in all markets, the Wii sales snowball is at the very beginning.
"As for your argument concerning the PS2's processing power, I would submit that the PS2 wasn't nearly as weak as the Wii is by comparison. Though the PS2 was clearly less capable graphically than the other two systems, this was accepted as a natural consequence of coming out a year earlier, and most people considered it to be a minor problem and an easy tradeoff in exchange for a better game lineup. The Wii has none of these excuses to fall back on."
The gulf between Wii and PS3 is the same as the DS and PSP.
Everyone is forgetting about the NES. The gaming platforms when the NES came out were game centric computers who were 16 bit. Let's look at the similarities:
NES: Family focused.
WII: Family focused.
NES: New controller (D-pad) that replaced the joystick.
WII: New controller (motion sensing) that is replacing dual sticks.
NES: 8-bit while game centric computers were 16-bit.
WII: Not HD while game centric computers pursued it.
NES: Awesome retro-gaming experience with ports of arcade classics (former Atari gamers' favorite titles) from Pac-Man, Xevious, Donkey Kong, and all the rest. A Virtual Arcade.
WII: Awesome retro-gaming experience with the NES, SNES, Genesis, Turbografix-16, and N64 games available (many former gamers' favorites). A Virtual Console.
NES: Gimmick mini-games like Duck Hunt and World Track Meet.
WII: Gimmick mini-games like Wii Play and Wii Music.
NES: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors.
WII: Focused on making gaming easier and more accessible than its game-centric computer competitors.
NES: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults.
WII: Was a huge hit with young kids. Was also played by adults.
NES: Competitors believed gaming would forever evolve into a more computer orientated platform. A machine should do everything and shouldn't just play games. Machines costed $300-600.
WII: Competitors believed game-only consoles were dead and they would further evolve into a platform for everything digital. These machines costed $300-600.
NES: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out in Japan and America due to a growing market.
WII: Never sold 'tons' at once. Consistently sold out everywhere due to a growing market.
NES: Excite Bike an early NES title that became a cult hit.
WII: Excite Truck an early WII title that became a cult hit.
NES: Early games, unused to the new controller, had some control issues.
WII: Early games, unused to the new controller, have some control issues.
NES: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'game and watch'.
WII: Preceded by a very popular two screened handheld 'DS'.
NES: The game industry thought NES would fail. When it didn't, they thought it would collapse and everyone would return to the game centric computers (Electronic Arts and Trip Hawkins thought this)
WII: The game industry thought Nintendo would fail. When it didn't, they are now thinking the Wii sales will collapse (i.e. novelty will 'fade') and everyone will return to the game centric computers of PS3 and Xbox 360.
There are so many similarities with the NES and WII that one can go on and on forever.
An owner of a last gen console arrives at Console Hut. While he examines the new consoles, a salesman approaches. He points to the Xbox 360 and asks about it.
"It has three processors for horsepower with high definition graphics capability. With a subscription of $50 a year, your game vehicle has access to Live where you can talk to other Xbox 360s. If you want to watch HD-DVDs, you need to buy an add-on."
"Do I get to drive down new roads?"
"Oh no! You only go down the same roads you could with your previous console. The difference is now it has three processors! And high definition capability! You go down the same roads faster with clearer and better windows (resolutions)."
"How about the PS3? Do I go down new roads with that?"
"No. But the console has awesome horsepower of the CELL processor! While it is more expensive than the Xbox 360, it has Blu-Ray and other features. You do so much with the PS3!"
"Except you are stuck driving down the same exact roads..." (sighs)
"Well, there is a console, the Wii, you probably wouldn't like." said the salesman.
"Why is that?"
"Well, it uses a similiar engine as your previous consoles. It isn't high definition. It simply doesn't have the POWER of the last two consoles and none of its extra perks. But it does do something the other consoles do not: you get to drive down roads no one has ever seen before. No one knows what type of games will appear on that machine. The future of its games is going into a new territory where gaming hasn't gone before..."
"I'LL TAKE IT!!!"
PS3 is not just a mercedes. It is a mercedes going down the same exact gaming road, seeing the same sights, only with more horsepower and better windows. While the Wii is an economy car, it has the ability to deliver new experiences.
Since entertainment is dependent on surprise, it is no wonder people prefer the new and unknown road.
Wii is currently outselling the PS2 at a similiar time frame.
DS is selling near Japanese levels now. DS numbers can no longer be accounted for the uptick in re-design and Christmas; it has truly caught on (and this is before Pokemon).
Nintendogs has sold over four million in the US and keeps selling strongly each month.
Twilight Princess is getting closer to outselling Wind Waker in the US.
If you combine America + Canada + Japan PS3 sales for the month of February, you get a measely 213,133.
In summary:
DS- Japanese DS fever has finally arrived at America. The upcoming Pokemon will send sales skyrocketing even further.
Wii- Supply restrained yet it is selling better than the PS2. This thing is a monster.
PS2- Still cruising along. Its sales show how much disinterest there is in high definition games.
Xbox 360- Steady but weak sales. The Xbox 360, despite being on the market for well over a year, has not outsold the PS2 yet in America. People calling 360 sales 'good' are delusional.
PSP- Horrible sales. Unless Sony does something, retailers might start removing the system.
GBA- Pure profit for Nintendo.
PS3- Abysmal.
Console war is over. PS3 is beginning to get too far behind in Japan and America. Xbox 360 is no contest since their first year of sales were weak and Xbox 360 is not selling too strongly in worldwide. Wii and DS are selling very strongly WORLDWIDE.
I wonder if any analyst (like Pachter) will still say the PS3 will become 'leader' now.
One person's opinion is not a news story. Don't attack me, the messenger, (i.e. accusing me with some agenda) by pointing out there was no reason for this column to be linked to at all as it was just one person's feelings (with no facts behind it). What is next? Is Slashdot going to link to blog entries?
My agenda is high quality at Slashdot. There are PLENTY of gaming news going on each and everyday without wasting a link to a column about one person's feelings. If your feelings 'align' with his, that doesn't make the column any more 'factual' since there are no facts involved at all. Slashdot linking to a single person saying he doesn't use his Mac, doesn't use his PS3, no longer uses his Toaster, etc. would be just as worthless.