Why do all game sites keep gushing over Kinect's voice commands?

[RandyT]

There's plenty of textbooks you can read on this subject provided you're not too busy writing up more hologram patents.

Feel free to quote them, or provide sources...current ones please.  People don't have the credit they used to, unemployment is at it's highest rate in decades, and you can't spend what you don't have.  You seem more concerned about that kind of thing than most, so it's a bit odd to see you taking this position. 

[Mikezilla]

There's plenty of textbooks you can read on this subject provided you're not too busy writing up more hologram patents.

Feel free to quote them, or provide sources...current ones please.  People don't have the credit they used to, unemployment is at it's highest rate in decades, and you can't spend what you don't have.  You seem more concerned about that kind of thing than most, so it's a bit odd to see you taking this position. 

I think he said that because he has said before he is "wealthy". 

[RandyT]

You can google your own industry statistics.  Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.

You haven't been paying attention.  MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth.  The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.

So try again.

[shmokes]

I would rather have a new system come out 3 years from now and have it be 300 bucks than have it come out now and be 500.

What could possibly lead you to believe that these are the only two (or even the most likely two) choices?  Why couldn't Microsoft release a system now and have it cost $300 or 3 years from now and have it cost $500.  Absolutely none of what you said makes any sense at all.

One thing is for sure, though.  No videogame company is going to develop their new videogame hardware to completion and then just set it on a shelf for 3 years until the price comes down.  That would be ridiculous.

[shmokes]

You can google your own industry statistics.  Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.

You haven't been paying attention.  MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth.  The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.

So try again.

The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy.  Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over.  For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars

[RandyT]

The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy.  Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over.  For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars

You also haven't been paying attention.  That article only talks about the situation up to 2009.  The 2010 picture is not as rosy.

[shmokes]

It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales.  If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat.  That's not great, but its not catastrophic.  If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane.  Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed. 

[Mikezilla]

I would rather have a new system come out 3 years from now and have it be 300 bucks than have it come out now and be 500.

What could possibly lead you to believe that these are the only two (or even the most likely two) choices?  Why couldn't Microsoft release a system now and have it cost $300 or 3 years from now and have it cost $500.  Absolutely none of what you said makes any sense at all.

One thing is for sure, though.  No videogame company is going to develop their new videogame hardware to completion and then just set it on a shelf for 3 years until the price comes down.  That would be ridiculous.

First off, I was at work and I had to rush that response. Second, it makes perfect sense. If the current systems DO have a shelf life of a few more years, why put out another system then? I would want to milk as much as I can from the current gen before I put something else out, wouldnt you? Who knows, the big 3 could each have a new system just waiting to be unveiled, but why do that when the current system is still kicking? The reasons they ARE kicking is because they are the ones in control. I know damn well if a new system came out tomorrow, I sure as ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- wouldnt buy it because the damn price tag would be insane. Besides, we are in a recession, nobody is going to shell out wads of cash for a new console anyway. Im wondering how much better they can even be...

Why couldnt they? If their current stuff starts to tank against the competetion, then bam. Release a new one they already have been working on. The thing is, is that they control the market. Who knows, maybe they arent all even competing. Maybe MS, Sony and Nintendo said "hey, lets not all release any new home consoles until 2015". You never know.

[Mikezilla]

It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales.  If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat.  That's not great, but its not catastrophic.  If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane.  Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed. 

The only reason their systems would "wane" is if the flow of good games stopped. Thats the whole reason we have these right? To play games on them? I wouldnt just stop playing my PS3 just because I figured the tech was old. Hell, we are in a arcade controls forum 

[RandyT]

It looks like 2010 was down 6% from 2009 if you're looking only at retail box sales.  If you include digital downloads and mobile games growth was flat.  That's not great, but its not catastrophic.  If anything I would think the big console manufacturers would accelerate their new console release plans when they start seeing interest in their systems wane.  Regardless, though, compared to the entertainment industry as a whole the videogame industry has weathered this economy relatively unscathed.  

Well, I'm not only looking at retail box sales, I'm referring to the industry as a whole.  We were also talking about consoles, and sales of those is down a lot more than 6% from years prior.

Here's an excerpt from a recent Game Informer issue;

This year, the games industry felt the effects of the economic downturn in a big way.  Only a few years ago, analysts and publishers laughed off the global financial crisis, declaring that video games were somehow recession-proof.  But studio bloodletting began in 2009, and continued at a furious pace in 2010 with a depressing number of studios suffering layoffs, closings, and publisher-mandated restructurings.  Victims included Red Octane, Krome Studios,  Visual Concepts, Neversoft, Raven Software, Realtime Worlds, Budcat, Luxoflux, Radical Entertainment, and Propaganda Games.

So again, just the beginning of what is to come if the current financial crisis continues, and certainly no climate in which to release new $400-$600 game consoles.

[RandyT]

I put the over/under on Randyt devolving into someone standing on the sidewalk arguing with clouds at 6 months.  Any takers?

Why, do you need some company on your street corner?  And that sounded like a backhanded dis to shmokes.

You are so overwhelmingly negative about everything, I'm taking action on you putting a revolver in your mouth in the same time period.  Get some help before it's too late, lil' buddy!

[RandyT]

Just... wow.

I knew you would like that one  

If you are done attacking the messenger, maybe you have something to add to the discussion?

[Dartful Dodger]

If you are done attacking the messenger, maybe you have something to add to the discussion?

This was your proevious post:

You are so overwhelmingly negative about everything, I'm taking action on you putting a revolver in your mouth in the same time period.  Get some help before it's too late, lil' buddy!

Speaking of not getting your own point...

If these current consoles are so "solid" why did we need these new controllers?

If the technology behind these new controllers improve the consoles' game play, wouldn't creating a new console around this technology deliver even better game play improvements instead of limiting these technologies to out dated consoles?

[RandyT]

Speaking of not getting your own point...

Quid pro quo.  PBJ has become one of the more mean spirited here as of late, so a little of his own medicine will do him some good.  It was a good natured jab, and I didn't mean to make him cry.   You ok, Jimmy ?  

If these current consoles are so "solid" why did we need these new controllers?

If the technology behind these new controllers improve the consoles' game play, wouldn't creating a new console around this technology deliver even better game play improvements instead of limiting these technologies to out dated consoles?

They are exactly the point I have been making.  The economy may not be able to sustain an entirely new console at a price of up to 6x more than the cost of an add-on, but add-ons which breathe new life into the existing consoles will allow the manufacturers more time before the inevitable.

The 360 showed a 42% hike in Dec. 2010 sales over the same in 2009, while the PS3 fell 11% and the Wii 38%.  Purely speculative, but one would probably need to attribute the relative continued success of the 360 to a couple of things:

1) The novelty of the Kinect.  The PS3 Move is probably the best control of it's kind, but the Wii did it so long ago.  There is nothing very novel about the Wii anymore and most folks who were going to buy one, probably did already.

2) Price point.  The Wii has this in spades, but it would be a stretch to consider it a "Next Gen" system, compared to the other two.  The PS3 has more multi-media punch than either of the others, thanks to the Blu-ray drive, but lots of folks already have Blu-ray players nowadays, and may be loathe to spend that extra $100 for it's inclusion.  The PS3 is still $300, and another $150 for the Move gizmos.  The 360 is likely seen as giving consumers the best overall bang for buck in a gaming system.  Again, driven in no small part by the current economy.

This doesn't speak to the quality of online play (which even my "Sony fanboy" nephew concedes is better on the 360) or the quality of the game libraries (where he will never concede anything is better ).  But there is a lot of real evidence out there that the video gaming sector is not recession proof as many have thought (and apparently still do, judging from some of the posts here).  It is complete naivety to think that what is currently happening in the industry, and the country/world as a whole, won't affect the timing for the release of the next console.  Timing is literally everything....just ask Sega.

[shmokes]

Well, I'm not only looking at retail box sales, I'm referring to the industry as a whole.  We were also talking about consoles, and sales of those is down a lot more than 6% from years prior.

The Google search "video games down 6% npd 2010" returned 186,000 results.  There must be something to it.  Here's a clip from a random result I clicked on (from Gamespot, IIRC):

"Overall retail sales of non-PC hardware, software, and accessories slid 6 percent in 2010, falling from $19.7 billion in 2009 to $18.58 billion in 2010. Despite surging sales of the Xbox 360, hardware saw the biggest decline, falling 13 percent from $7.19 billion to $6.29 billion. Non-PC retail software sales also slipped, dropping 6 percent from $9.92 billion to $9.36 billion. Accessories, on the other hand, saw a 13 percent increase to $2.93 billion, thanks to the introduction of the PlayStation Move and Kinect motion-sensing systems."

[shmokes]

Why couldnt they?
 

Because it would make them extraordinarily uncompetitive.  What do you do when you develop a console for one market, and then put it on the shelf and two years later the market begins to shift dramatically (think Wii) and all you have is this uncompetitive aging product that's been sitting on the shelves for two years.  Moreover, that product that you have had sitting on the shelf for two or three years would have cost a fraction of R&D costs if you'd just waited 2-3 years and developed it then, when hardware prices had come down, and designers and engineers had had 2-3 more years of experience with that type of technology.  What you're talking about is just totally unrealistic from a business point of view.  If a new console takes 2 years to develop, and you're planning on releasing it 3 years later you're talking about basing all your development decisions on what you think will be most successful five years down the road.  That would be an extraordinarily risky, expensive, unnecessary business model.

[RandyT]

The Google search "video games down 6% npd 2010" returned 186,000 results.  There must be something to it.  Here's a clip from a random result I clicked on (from Gamespot, IIRC):

"Overall retail sales of non-PC hardware, software, and accessories slid 6 percent in 2010, falling from $19.7 billion in 2009 to $18.58 billion in 2010. Despite surging sales of the Xbox 360, hardware saw the biggest decline, falling 13 percent from $7.19 billion to $6.29 billion. Non-PC retail software sales also slipped, dropping 6 percent from $9.92 billion to $9.36 billion. Accessories, on the other hand, saw a 13 percent increase to $2.93 billion, thanks to the introduction of the PlayStation Move and Kinect motion-sensing systems."

That may be true for the dollar amount, as an average.  But the hardware side was hardest hit, and it would have been much worse, were it not for the Kinect, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Move.  When you subtract the Kinect from the picture, which you say is not going to succeed, the hardware side of things looks much more grim.  This is the reason why I think you will see some concentrated efforts to support it.  The sales of it are not only offsetting lost console revenues, but it's helping to sell systems, thereby preventing them (at least for Microsoft.)  If the Kinect fails, as you, again, predict it will, and the economy doesn't improve, there will likely be little to offset faltering hardware sales in 2011 like there was this past year.  That could spell real problems for the industry in 2011 and the losses will likely end up much higher than 6%.

Also, 6% doesn't sound like much, but it's 1.2 billion dollars!  That has already accounted for lost jobs and restructuring of several companies.  Regardless of the numbers, though, the actions taken within the industry are starting to move in line with what other sectors do in rough times; close, restructure and/or downsize.  There's no reason, without some change in the financial climate, to expect that trend to cease.

Of course the optimistic picture is that the add-ons continue to do well, which keeps console sales strong thereby creating additional incentive for developers to create innovative games for them, which continue to raise demand for the add-ons, etc...  And that software developers can keep game sales high overall, in spite of the tough economy.  I guess we will have to wait and see.

[RandyT]

Randyt, until this thread, the only person I'd encountered that was never wrong despite the facts was myself.  


A 6% downturn in this economy is nothing.

Here are some facts broken down so you can understand them;

Software:  2010 should have been a big year for software sales with major releases of a number of popular franchises like Halo, COD, Mario, God of War, etc...  Still, receded 6% and a number of companies finally gave way under the weight of the economy.

Hardware:  Wii was the biggest loser with 38% fewer sales than the year prior, even though they made them in different colors and did some decent bundling.  The PS3 down 11% in spite of the addition of the Move hardware.  It's not much of a reach to think that sales of the PS3 would have been worse without it, but that would be speculation.  The Xbox360, however, propped up the entire industry with 42% growth.  They were literally the only one not to have slid backwards.  An intelligent person looks at patterns like this and understands that there must be reasons.  I'm still waiting for your hypothesis, if it differs from mine.

Accessories:  Up from last year, but this would be obvious.  Move and Kinect are major accessory items and they aren't cheap.  Cheaper than a new "next gen" system by a long shot, but still costly enough to drive the numbers from previous years.

So while 6% downturn in this economy may be "nothing" relative to other industries, it's significant for a couple of reasons.  This should have been a banner year for video games, with big growth.  There was a perfect storm of new games based on the major franchises, and new hardware for two of the big three, to expand their capabilities.  Yet the industry, as a whole, slid backwards, with some sliding much more than others.

And the other reason it's significant, is that it shows, in a big way, IMHO, that industry analysts and general industry cheerleaders were wrong in their assertion that the video gaming industry was somehow immune from economic pressures that have negatively affected virtually every other industry which produces non-essential goods.  It's a wake-up call.

[shmokes]

I'm still waiting for your hypothesis, if it differs from mine.

I think it's a combination of things.  One, there was a bunch of hype built-up around the Kinect which pushed systems.  Two, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 offer virtually identical experiences (both of which are better than the Wii) and the Xbox 360 is substantially cheaper than the PS3.

Keep in mind, though, that this 42% growth you're speaking about doesn't support your doom & gloom stuff about the video game industry.  Of course the economy has affected the industry, but as a whole, it's been comparatively unaffected by the recession.  Many companies had huge years.  And one of the big three saw major growth.  Videogame sales were flat if you include digital distribution (and why wouldn't you).  Compared to the rest of the economy, the videogame industry has weathered this recession incredibly well.

And then . . . like . . . of course a console manufacturer would prefer that the economy is booming when they release a new machine, but they can't just not release a machine until they have that luxury.  There are too many other factors controlling the schedule, like R&D schedules, competitive timing considerations (i.e., beat the other guys to the market or, barring that, at least don't come in so late that you can't catch up), credit rating (at one point you need to start making a return on your investment), stock price (see previous parenthetical), working capital, software development (internal and external software developers need at least a year's head's up re: release date so they can allocate their development teams accordingly), etc.  I'm sure there are a million other factors.  This is just the stuff I've pulled out of ---my bottom--- just now.

[RandyT]

I think it's a combination of things.  One, there was a bunch of hype built-up around the Kinect which pushed systems.  Two, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 offer virtually identical experiences (both of which are better than the Wii) and the Xbox 360 is substantially cheaper than the PS3.

There was just as much hype surrounding the Move.  I'm still being inundated by it while watching TV.  Didn't keep the PS3 from losing ground, though.  So all things being equal, consumers went for the "cheap" option.  Financial crunch at work.

Keep in mind, though, that this 42% growth you're speaking about doesn't support your doom & gloom stuff about the video game industry.  Of course the economy has affected the industry, but as a whole, it's been comparatively unaffected by the recession.  Many companies had huge years.  And one of the big three saw major growth.  Videogame sales were flat if you include digital distribution (and why wouldn't you).  Compared to the rest of the economy, the videogame industry has weathered this recession incredibly well.

First off, you can't include digital distribution because it's not included in the previous year's numbers either.  If you want to compare, you need to add it to the last years numbers as well.  So unless you are asserting that digital distribution was much greater this year than last, that comment doesn't make any sense.  You are also ignoring the fact that the line-up in 2010, more so than the previous year's, should have guaranteed bigger numbers.  It didn't.  The 42% increase for MS is great news, but you have been positing that the thing responsible for that increase is destined for failure.  So you, in particular, would have to view that increase as a "bump" that isn't really indicative of the overall health of the industry, and one which won't be there next time around.  Without that offset, the picture is not as rosy.

And I don't disagree that they have been doing well.  Receding sales is not the same as "big losses", but it's still an indicator.  The question in my mind is; when the industry puts it's best foot forward, which it really did in 2010, and sales still decline 6% overall, what else can they do to prevent that from becoming worse in a year where they don't, and the economy hasn't improved?

And then . . . like . . . of course a console manufacturer would prefer that the economy is booming when they release a new machine, but they can't just not release a machine until they have that luxury.  There are too many other factors controlling the schedule, like R&D schedules, competitive timing considerations (i.e., beat the other guys to the market or, barring that, at least don't come in so late that you can't catch up), credit rating (at one point you need to start making a return on your investment), stock price (see previous parenthetical), working capital, software development (internal and external software developers need at least a year's head's up re: release date so they can allocate their development teams accordingly), etc.  I'm sure there are a million other factors.  This is just the stuff I've pulled out of ---my bottom--- just now.

I would expect that there has already been quite a bit of groundwork done on the next systems for all of the players.  They pretty much start conceptualizing the next one before the first is even on the shelves.  But like Mike wrote, they aren't going to ditch a current system until virtually every drop of coin is squeezed out.  That would just be bad business.  That's not to say that a competitor couldn't cause that to happen more quickly either.  And having a system designed and sitting in the wings works to the manufacturer's benefit when they can squeeze more time out of the current system, as technology tends to cost less as more time passes, and the time to market will be greatly reduced.  But at some point, the manufacturer has to commit.  That is when the designs get completely finalized, factories get fired up, and the developers are put on final notice and supplied with development equipment, etc.  But they aren't going to do this until they absolutely have to in a poor economy.  Companies get very conservative in rough times, and again, videogame companies are no exception.  In rough times, if they can put off massive cash outlays associated with manufacturing and introducing a new system for an extra year by simply knocking another $50 off the price of the current console, or packing in the motion control hardware at the same price, you can be sure that they will do that first.  And you are correct that there are plenty of other logistical considerations, but they pale in comparison to the consideration as to how the machine will be received, or if it can even be adopted in reasonable quantities by the market, given the current economic climate.

[shmokes]

There was just as much hype surrounding the Move.  

You're insane.  Microsoft marketed the ---fudgesicle--- out of that thing.  Oprah was giving it away on her show to all her housewife spectators.  Jimmy Kimmel too, I think.  There are probably 10 Kinect ads to every Move ad.  The hype surrounding Move wasn't even close.

And you can include digital distribution because otherwise you're left with something retarded.  If I buy Burnout from PSN it's a ---smurfing--- game sale just as much as if I buy Burnout on disc (both are available--I have the disc-based one).  Criterion and EA lose money when I buy a pair of pants in lieu of the Burnout disc.  When I buy Burnout via PSN in lieu of the the Burnout disc that money sort of has to be counted, ya know?  Otherwise your numbers tell a lie.  Your numbers say the videogame industry has slipped 6% when in reality people are just paying them with a different form of legal tender.

Also, I haven't looked anything up, but yeah, digital distributions were much greater this year than last.  I mean, obviously I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.

[shmokes]

Moreover, you keep saying that they put their best foot forward in 2010, but I don't really see how that's true.  The 360 is more than 5 years old.  The other two are more than 4 years old.  You said that companies get conservative when times are tough, and that includes software publishers.  EA, Activision, Ubisoft . . . everyone is scaling back on original IP and putting all their resources into tentpole sequels.  Everything about 2010 practically begs gamers to get bored with the current generation.  It's aging and the publishers aren't giving us anything new.  They're almost exclusively just putting ever-shinier layers of polish on proven games.

Note: I'm speaking in generalities.  I know that there are exceptions to every rule and there were probably a few really creative releases here and there.  And for ---fudgesicle---'s sake, yes, I know about Dance Central.  I agree.  It looks really innovative.  It looks fun.  I wish I had a Kinect and a 360 right now so I could dance my heart out.  It doesn't erase the rest of the world, though, unfortunately.  Also, I'm not going to buy a Kinect just for that.  Even if I had a 360.  For reasons stated.

[RandyT]

You're insane.  Microsoft marketed the ---fudgesicle--- out of that thing.  Oprah was giving it away on her show to all her housewife spectators.  Jimmy Kimmel too, I think.  There are probably 10 Kinect ads to every Move ad.  The hype surrounding Move wasn't even close.

I don't watch Oprah or Jimmy Kimmel.  In fact, I don't think I have seen more than 3 commercials on TV for the Kinect.  PS3, with the Move, OTOH, more than I can remember, and still counting.  Was it mostly during daytime soaps?

Also, I haven't looked anything up, but yeah, digital distributions were much greater this year than last.  I mean, obviously I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.

Well, feel free to look it up.  At this point you are "freestyling", and regardless, you still have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful.  Otherwise, what is the point?

[RandyT]

Moreover, you keep saying that they put their best foot forward in 2010, but I don't really see how that's true.  The 360 is more than 5 years old.  The other two are more than 4 years old.  You said that companies get conservative when times are tough, and that includes software publishers.  EA, Activision, Ubisoft . . . everyone is scaling back on original IP and putting all their resources into tentpole sequels.  Everything about 2010 practically begs gamers to get bored with the current generation.  It's aging and the publishers aren't giving us anything new.  They're almost exclusively just putting ever-shinier layers of polish on proven games.

Note: I'm speaking in generalities.  I know that there are exceptions to every rule and there were probably a few really creative releases here and there.  And for ---fudgesicle---'s sake, yes, I know about Dance Central.  I agree.  It looks really innovative.  It looks fun.  I wish I had a Kinect and a 360 right now so I could dance my heart out.  It doesn't erase the rest of the world, though, unfortunately.  Also, I'm not going to buy a Kinect just for that.  Even if I had a 360.  For reasons stated.

If you look at the top game sales, those "polished antiques" are at the highest positions.  They are the best-selling franchises, and pretty much all of them hit in 2010.   On the hardware side, there were 2 add-ons for the systems, that weren't there the previous year, and significantly added to the types of games both could play.  This should be easy stuff to understand.

If you are saying that the industry is getting bogged down in the remix, like the movie and music industries, I would tend to agree.  That also doesn't bode well for the future.  Still, they pretty much guarantee sales, so a lot of focus is put on them.  I think you have hit on a crucial component for stability, and it was confirmed in 2010.  People want something fresh, and a new system with little more than snazzier graphics and better frame rates might not be enough to get them to buy in.

[shmokes]

Well, feel free to look it up.  At this point you are "freestyling", and regardless, you still have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful.  Otherwise, what is the point?

Randy, you don't have to cite everything you say.  You'd have to be retarded to not see that digital distribution is increasing rapidly at the expense of boxed retail games.  Have you ever heard of Steam?  But here's something if you must see scientific facts to confirm the absurdly obvious.

And you don't have to do a 1:1 to make it meaningful.  The percentage of games that are purchased digitally vis-a-vis retail box is growing.  Rapidly.  Growing.  That means that citing 6% (you say it's way higher than that, actually) is misleading.  Because it makes it look like sales declined 6%, when in reality a lot of that was simply growth in digital distribution.  1:1 ignores the growth in digital distribution.  In any case, 6% ain't even bad in this economy.  

[RandyT]

Randy, you don't have to cite everything you say.  You'd have to be retarded to not see that digital distribution is increasing rapidly at the expense of boxed retail games.  Have you ever heard of Steam?  But here's something if you must see scientific facts to confirm the absurdly obvious.

That article made my head hurt.  They showed a 4x loss (322million) on lower revenues, yet "the future is bright" because they made 60 million more in downloaded games than the year before.  Did I get that right?  If so, they still lost over 5x what they gained, so it's hard to see the direct game downloads as capable of making that much difference.  And while Steam may be popular for PC games, I don't think digital distribution is quite that popular on consoles.  It's hard impossible to trade in a downloaded game for 60% of what you payed for it.

[shmokes]

I didn't read the article.  I did a google search and grabbed a random link with an appropriate headline.  But there are lots of games doing really really well on Live, PSN and Wiiware, not to mention Android, iOS, etc.  Digital game distribution is getting kinda big.  Fast.  And not just on PCs (which isn't to say PCs don't count; they do, of course).

[SithMaster]

I didn't read the article.  I did a google search and grabbed a random link with an appropriate headline.  But there are lots of games doing really really well on Live, PSN and Wiiware, not to mention Android, iOS, etc.  Digital game distribution is getting kinda big.  Fast.  And not just on PCs (which isn't to say PCs don't count; they do, of course).

If I can buy a game cheaper because I'm only paying for the game itself (not for the case, disc burning, and for it to be shipped to my local store) I can see how digital would be important to factor into all these numbers you guys are throwing around.  Impulse buys when your credit card is hooked up to Steam (really cheap bundles of games you are never going to play) will result in quick sales especially if the content is reduced in price.

I can't help thinking of Sega in this situation, though that isn't really an accurate comparison since these are merely controllers instead of direct improvements to the actual hardware.

[shmokes]

Wait, what's this?  Good financial news for Sony too?  Maybe the videogame industry really is weathering this storm pretty well.

[RandyT]

Wait, what's this?  Good financial news for Sony too?  Maybe the videogame industry really is weathering this storm pretty well.

The two are not related.  No-one said there weren't profits being made, only that sales are slipping, and that as an indicator that the industry isn't immune to economic woes, as so many wingnuts have been saying.

You are also looking at the result of Sony's re-design of the PS3.  Of course when it costs less to build one, you are going to make more money for every one sold.  I'll bet ditching the memory card slots, the door to cover them, and backward compatibility from the first models made them more money as well.  That just goes to show you that Sony could, if they wanted, charge a lot less for the new PS3, which is good, because soon they will need to.

This is also straight from Sony, so they need to report something good to investors after the pummeling they took from the 360 (relatively speaking.)

[shmokes]

The two are not related.  No-one said there weren't profits being made, only that sales are slipping, and that as an indicator that the industry isn't immune to economic woes, as so many wingnuts have been saying.

We're not just talking about sales revenues in isolation.  There was a larger point to the discussion.  You're suggesting that nobody's going to release a new console in this nightmare of a videogame economy.  And I'm saying the videogame economy is fine.  It has taken a relatively slight hit thanks to the recession, but overall it is still extremely healthy.

We've come full-circle, now.  This is exactly how this discussion got started:

You can google your own industry statistics.  Needless to say, video games are doing quite well.

You haven't been paying attention.  MS is the only one of the 3 showing growth.  The others are showing major decreases in sales, and a number of developers have bit the dust or are not as strong as they were years prior.

So try again.

The videogame industry had been doing spectacularly well in spite of the economy.  Not that the ---smurfy--- economy has had no negative effect whatsoever on it, but it's nothing to get worked up over.  For every bad story in the industry you've got a Gamestop fiscal results or the like to balance it out.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/video-game-industry-growth-runs-circles-around-us-economy.ars

[RandyT]

We're not just talking about sales revenues in isolation.  There was a larger point to the discussion.  You're suggesting that nobody's going to release a new console in this nightmare of a videogame economy.  And I'm saying the videogame economy is fine.  It has taken a relatively slight hit thanks to the recession, but overall it is still extremely healthy.

But you are trying to use profits made as a result of a matured (read: 3rd major hardware revision) console as support for that.  Don't you think they want to finally start reaping the rewards of that for as long as possible before putting themselves in the hole again?  And don't you think that they will be very concerned about whether they are able to climb out of said hole as quickly the next time around, if the economy doesn't improve?  The economy has only really started getting bad (more widespread and less credit available) in the last year or so, and these consoles had a pretty good head start on the problems.  Releasing a new one into this climate would be suicide, and don't think for a second that they don't understand this.

You will see a lot of bundling and price reductions well before you see a new console from anyone.  It's already been stated what the tentative new console release schedules are, so you can expect them to be at least that far out.  If they economy gets worse, you might see it go out even further.

[RandyT]

The 3DS isn't a console?

No, it's a handheld.  But Nintendo does have it's work cut out for it on the console front.  What it does in the next year and a half will give you a good idea as to the direction of the other two.  It's probably too late for them to drop something by Christmas 2011, but if they experience the same drop in sales this year, they will need to do something by the end of 2012.  I see Nintendo as being key in what happens, as schedules are concerned.  They can't wait much longer, so they will need to show their hand first.  If they come up with a "full house", there will be much activity from the others.  But if they show a "pair of sevens", the other two won't do a thing until they are good and ready.

[RandyT]

[RandyT]

I dunno, Randy, I like your encoders but your shop consists of a lot of stuff people don't want or need (your new ClassX buttons in particular are a real head scratcher but at least they're cheap) so I don't think you've got any kind of enhanced insight into the game industry.

Do you think it's a good business practice to deliberately argue with people over fine details when we're all just speculating anyway?

You haven't a clue about my customer base or what people order from our store every day.  And frankly it's pretty sad, but expected from someone like you, to make statements like the one above for no other reason than to try to hurt me financially, simply because you disagree and are unable to articulate exactly why.

Stop being a troll.  If you don't find the discussion interesting, move along.

[shmokes]

His blah blah blahs have a point Randy.  For the purposes of our discussion the 3ds is a console.  Pointing out otherwise is just grating.  Of course it isn't a console, it's a handheld, but it is a closed videogame platform that uses proprietary media.  It's made by one of the big three console manufacturers and all the videogame publishers develop for it.  And it's $250.  And it's subject to the same economy as the rest of the videogame industry.  You ought to reign in your compulsive need to argue every single solitary point to your last breath (often even when you agree with your opponent).

Also, take a look at what's out there about Kinect's marketing.  $500 million marketing budget!  It eclipses Move's.  I watch almost no TV at all, and I've seen a bunch of Kinect ads.  I don't think I've ever seen a Move ad on TV.  We were buried in Kinect marketing over the holidays.  I don't know what planet you live on to have not seen it (though considering that you were an early adopter, I suspect that all that marketing might have reached you too).

[RandyT]

His blah blah blahs have a point Randy.  For the purposes of our discussion the 3ds is a console.  Pointing out otherwise is just grating.  Of course it isn't a console, it's a handheld, but it is a closed videogame platform that uses proprietary media.  It's made by one of the big three console manufacturers and all the videogame publishers develop for it.  And it's $250.  And it's subject to the same economy as the rest of the videogame industry.  You ought to reign in your compulsive need to argue every single solitary point to your last breath (often even when you agree with your opponent).

 

Was that a helpful response?  I didn't think so either, so I'll respond by stating that you have answered every post here as well, not only the ones from me, so it's one of those "pot, kettle, black" situations.  And add to that the fact that the 3DS is based heavily upon the DS that is in it's name and it is an entirely different market.  The product is an evolutionary step in the current product line and has no bearing on the console market.  But it's "trial by fire" is about to begin and it will be interesting to watch.

Also, take a look at what's out there about Kinect's marketing.  $500 million marketing budget!  It eclipses Move's.  I watch almost no TV at all, and I've seen a bunch of Kinect ads.  I don't think I've ever seen a Move ad on TV.  We were buried in Kinect marketing over the holidays.  I don't know what planet you live on to have not seen it (though considering that you were an early adopter, I suspect that all that marketing might have reached you too).

Sorry, I can only tell you my experience.  Ads run more heavily in different markets.  I watch a fair amount of Comedy Central, and all I see are PS3 ads.  Over and over and over.  Also keep in mind that a marketing budget isn't just TV ads.  Those big release events come from that money as well.

[Malenko]

Ive never seen a kinect ad, but I have seen Move ads. The PS3 commercials are hit or miss, sometimes "Kevin Bulter" is hilarious, other times its kinda stupid.  Other then that I cant believe this thread is still going. Lets say we let it go for like 4 months or so and see whats what?

[shmokes]

The 3DS is an evolutionary step to the DS the same as the Playstation 2 was an evolutionary step to the Playstation.  The DS was released six years ago.  The DS will not play 3DS software.  The 3DS is the successor to the DS full stop.

As for it being an entirely different market, what of it?  First, it's not an entirely different market.  It's a segment of the videogame market, and there's a ton of overlap between console and handheld gamers.  For example, the percentage of DS-owning households that also have one or more of the consoles is probably astronomically higher than, say, the percentage of gun-owning or sewing-machine-owning houses.  

More importantly, who cares?  Why would this terrifying economy prevent a new videogame console launch, but not a new videogame handheld launch?  

[shmokes]

Ive never seen a kinect ad, but I have seen Move ads. The PS3 commercials are hit or miss, sometimes "Kevin Bulter" is hilarious, other times its kinda stupid.  Other then that I cant believe this thread is still going. Lets say we let it go for like 4 months or so and see whats what?

Why are you guys still talking about this (as I chime in with my own two cents)?