The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Consoles => Topic started by: hypernova on September 21, 2012, 09:13:48 pm
-
More expensive? (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/09/sony-new-playstation-3/)
Sony has revealed a new design for the PS3. Non-adopters until now can rejoice! It's more expensive than the current cheapest model! Wait...what? More expensive?
The selling point is the HDD capacity and lighter weight/smaller size. I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that once you get in the late stages of a console's lifetime, the HDD size would be less of an issue, unless you like to catch up on a large backlog of games. Am I the only one who thinks that way? I would've thought they kept the HDDs the same size and just dropped the prices (along with the size and weight, of course). Or at least not raise the price while slightly enlarging the capacity. Instead they choose to make a 6 year old console barely cheaper than the soon-to-be Wii U. Sure the Wii U will have next to no HDD space, but from what I've read it will be USB HDD compatible, so heck, maybe you could add one on that you already have and forgo the expense of another one. Whether that actually happens I'm still a tad skeptical.
Granted, I'm no expert, but maybe they're compensating for movies and shows and hoping you'll keep the PS3 for years to come. But it just seems a little odd to go this route so late in the game, and then to top it off by raising the price. Heck...maybe most people won't notice or care.
-
Man, I gotta say... the PS3 is a real turd of a system. If it didn't play BluRays I would have sold it at least a year ago. It's not even that great of a BluRay player - takes forever to fire up and then you have to manually shut it down. It'll grind that drive motor away for weeks if you forget.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Uncharted 2 and 3. If I didn't have a RGHed 360 in the house I'd probably sing the praises of the system but it's just an overall meh.
-
Hey, just what we've all been asking for. Same console, same price, but 200% more ugly!
-
I never have got how Sony has become as successful as they have. I get Microsoft, they came out with affordable hardware that was still fairly state-of-the-art as well as basically re-inventing online gaming. I obviously get Nintendo as well. They have this HUGE ip catalog that keeps them afloat even in the bad times and even though people don't always like what they come up with, they are always trying something new in an attempt to keep the gaming experience fresh.
So what does Sony bring to the table? I'm not flaming, I'm genuinely asking.
I mean I get what got them their initial start.... the n64 decided to go cart-based and the psx didn't. Personally I feel that Nintendo made the right call on that one. The load times on many of the popular playstation games were just awful and the only benefit the extra capacity seemed to ever add were fmv and higher-res textures, which looked awful anyway thanks to the psx's crappy 3d hardware. But I do understand how people could see it the other way and jump to team sony.
Then the Ps2 comes out.... ok I get it, the gamecube looks goofy and has an admittedly goofy controller and this new "microsoft xbox" is an unproven console by an unproven brand. So I can see SOME of team sony remaining loyal throughout that whole generation.
But this generation, I just don't see why anyone could remain loyal to that company. The 360 comes out of the gate swinging and it's a hit. Improves every aspect of the xbox classic that needed fixed and everybody pretty much loves it. The Wii comes out alongside the ps3. Keep in mind that at this point most "serious gamers" already have a 360. The Wii offers soemthing completely new, it's a bit scary but the thing only costs 250 bucks and it comes with a free game. The thing becomes a runaway hit. Ps3 is released around the same time. It offers absolutely nothing new. It claims to have better graphics than the 360, but all of the launch titles look as good or worse than the 360 games. Oh and the thing is 600 bucks. Wait what? Now thankfully common sense prevailed and that holiday season the ps3 didn't sell all too well.
My question is why did it ever recover? I honestly don't get how they've improved anything other than getting the price down to a slightly more reasonable level.
I mean don't get me wrong, Sony has some exclusive titles, but not a lot. You've got Metal Gear, which is slowly but surely migrating to other consoles anyway. Uncharted which is fairly new. Final Fantasy, which even by FF fan standards has admittedly hit a rut and God of War, which is "cloned" in countless games across all three systems.
So what is the draw? Is it like that whole iphone 5 thing... where you "have" to get one even though the iphone 4 (not to mention 3 and 2 and to a degree 1) is just fine because "it is one newer"?
-
Blu-Ray was a big part of it. While it did add considerably to the cost of the PS3, it helped Sony win the high-def format war.
As for the prior generations, the success of the PSX and PS2 was mainly built on games. Simply put, they had the best game libraries. Generally the system with the best games will win that generation's console war. Although Nintendo seems to have bucked that trend with the Wii.
-
Blu-Ray was a big part of it. While it did add considerably to the cost of the PS3, it helped Sony win the high-def format war.
As for the prior generations, the success of the PSX and PS2 was mainly built on games. Simply put, they had the best game libraries. Generally the system with the best games will win that generation's console war. Although Nintendo seems to have bucked that trend with the Wii.
+1 on this.
You gotta remember, at the time PS3 came out, Bluray was still a relatively new format and those players were expensive. With the PS3 swooping in at that price point and being able to play games was a major selling point.
Part of the extended life Sony gave their PSx and PS2 is due to their reducing their licensing fees towards the end of those consoles. Remember those craptastic games like Parapa the Rapper? They are a direct result of the reduced licensing fees and the sudden explosion of games for the PSx at the end of the lifecycle (it happened with the PS2, but it doesn't seem as obvious).
The lack of a price reduction is indeed puzzling though. It doesn't take half a brain to know when console companies release a new console version, they're reducing their costs in some fashion. They all do it. But for Sony to announce a new console design and not reduce the price? Either they're being overly greedy and confident for their console or one of the engineers dropped the ball and they're using new (as in more expensive) parts to produce the console.
-
Also, PS3 has a lower break down rate than the 360. Out of those two, I would get the PS3 just for that fact alone, given that the games that tend to catch my eye on are on both...
-
Most people I know with a PS3, granted this is a sample of adults, bought the PS3 "because I want a Blu Ray player anyway". Few of them actually use the thing for much other than media.
-
Honestly Sony has always offered quality games which are all exclusive same as Nintendo but on the other hand Microsoft has a real lack of exclusive titles the only ones memorable are Gears of War and the Halo franchise
-
Most people I know with a PS3, granted this is a sample of adults, bought the PS3 "because I want a Blu Ray player anyway". Few of them actually use the thing for much other than media.
Yup, hand raised over here on that one. But I do enjoy the console so no regrets on it.
So what does Sony bring to the table? I'm not flaming, I'm genuinely asking.
With the PSX and PS2, Sony simply had a great library of games for all types of players that were also inexpensive (especially when they're a few years old). Sony was basically the replacement for Sega: an alternative to the more 'family-friendly' fare over on Nintendo (but not like Sega with the useless add-ons and market oversatuation with complete different hardware products being on sale at the same time).
And here's a realization I came to - but this is more personal: how you feel about Sony is how I feel about Microsoft and their Xbox/Xbox 360 consoles. For whatever reason, I always felt those consoles lacked any 'personality' or standout titles (not a hardcore Halo fan). I'm thinking it has more to do with the cultural differences; Japanese culture to some of us westerners always had that quirky charm that Xbox, as an American made system, seems to lack. Plus Sony has some IPs that are somewhat amusing ('Sackboy', 'Ratchet & Clank', 'Drake'). Basically what Necroticart said.
I didn't say the above to start a fanboy war BTW. People come to me for console buying advice and I do direct them to Microsoft's console more often than Sony's based on what they're looking for.
As an aside: I wonder if there's some "Third Console Curse". Think about it: N64 was Nintendo's third home console and first real defeat. Ditto for the Sega and their Saturn (although that was more a spectacular failure in the states). Sony's third console is also struggling even when it seemed easy enough to build off the PS2 momentum (this was before any price announcements of course).
That all being said, Sony has some great titles but just can't seem to be competitive this go-around. The hardware's impressive but they can't get it to the consumer at an attractive price.
-
Japanese culture to some of us westerners always had that quirky charm
Really? I think they're treacherous perverts.
-
But this generation, I just don't see why anyone could remain loyal to [Sony]. The 360 comes out of the gate swinging and it's a hit.
Microsoft's very public hardware issues certainly had a hand in some people picking PS3 over 360.
Final Fantasy is no longer PS exclusive, either. 360 had FF13. (Which ended up sucking no matter what console you have!)
-
Sega Genesis Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7meLcpdfpxY#)
-
Well Sony having a "great library of games" is certainly subjective. I can count the sony exclusive titles that I actually enjoyed, much less found to be "must have" titles on my one hand. Mind you microsoft doesn't have any exclusives worth having either, but Microsoft didn't ask you to pay 600 bucks for their console. And in the xbox classic generation, the xbox had the superior hardware without a cost increase so I bought it.
I would say 95% of what I play on the 360 are multi-platform titles. If I had a PS3, it would be the same. Honestly the only sony exclusive title I ever fell in love with was twisted metal II on the psx. All the subsequent sequels were complete crap though so my love affair soon ended.
Nintendo, IMHO is the only company that has ever had exclusives worth buying a system for, and that goes back to the sega days.
The thing about bluray players being expensive at the time is a bit of a myth as well. I'm guessing it was propigated by sony themselves to sell the console. I've got a very good samsung player sitting in the living room that was bought around when the ps3 came out. I think we paid around 110-120 for it? Something like that? Mind you it was on sale, but I didn't go camping out in the cold or anything... I just saw the sale in the paper and went "cool I'll pick that up this week" and it was still there when I finally got around to it. I mean yeah it might seem like you are saving money, but when the console is 200 bucks higher than the other you really aren't. What you are getting instead is one of those horrible combo devices. As pbj said, the ps3 isn't real good as a bluray player to begin with. Even if it was a savings then I would rather get two dedicated devices that did their jobs well.
Now that certainly explains Sony's success in Japan though.... space is at a premium over there and combining two appliances into one makes a lot more sense.
Anyway thanks for the info... I think I'm just going to have to come to the conslusion that Sony consumers are just wierd. ;)
Dave:
I don't think there is anything to the "third console curse" The N64 certainly didn't sell as well as the psx, but Nintendo made a buttload of money off of the N64, so it wasn't exactly a failure. Yeah the Saturn was a failure, but so was the 32x, the Cd, and the Dreamcast. Sega was really a one hit wonder of a company in terms of hardware, even though sega fans fail to see it that way. ;)
Again, this is just me and it should be apparent that this point that I don't care for sony and it's consoles at all, but I think this was the first release on equal footing. Nintendo is always going off and doing it's own thing, so there isn't as much straight competition with them. So sony was essentially unopposed for the ps1 era, and had unproven opposition in the ps2 era. Now that the xbox 360 has finally caught on they finally had equal competition, but I get the feeling that as a company they felt that they had been competative all along when really they haven't. They offered a product nobody else did until recently. Wait.... that might be my answer right there.
-
Japanese culture to some of us westerners always had that quirky charm
Really? I think they're treacherous perverts.
Says the guy with the rapey bartop! :D
-
Well Sony having a "great library of games" is certainly subjective.
Not for the PSX and PS2 generations. They had the largest library of titles and therefore a greater number of higher rated games, based on aggregate review scores. Again, that's basically why they won those console wars.
For the current generation, they are on par with the 360, but largely due the sheer number of overlap. The Wii remains the console with the lower-ranked titles, but more exlusives though.
Nintendo, IMHO is the only company that has ever had exclusives worth buying a system for, and that goes back to the sega days.
Depends on what games you are interested in. For example, JRPG fans flocked to the PSX and PS2 because the largest bulk of those games were on those systems, including the venerable Final Fantasy series.
The thing about bluray players being expensive at the time is a bit of a myth as well.
When they initially came out they were expensive. I recall ~$400 being the entry point at the time. And a lot of them had teething issues to boot, which is another reason the PS3 did well. It was considered for awhile to be one of the best Blu Ray players.
-
The N64 certainly didn't sell as well as the psx, but Nintendo made a buttload of money off of the N64, so it wasn't exactly a failure. Yeah the Saturn was a failure, but so was the 32x, the Cd, and the Dreamcast. Sega was really a one hit wonder of a company in terms of hardware, even though sega fans fail to see it that way. ;)
Compared to their runaway success during the 8 and 16 bit generations, yes the 64 was a disappointment. It was their first "lose" in the console wars. Also consider they lost a lot of their successful and previously loyal third parties. Square jumped-ship completely while Capcom and Konami focused most of their attention on the PSX. The most memorable N64 games were first party releases and maybe some Rare titles. I love Nintendo but, realistically, the N64 was not their finest hour.
However, they still did finish second out of three considering the Saturn was dead in the water in the US. And Nintendo typically sells their hardware at profit so they're still making the money (not to mention that sweet Gameboy and Pokeman cash-machines they had churning). So yeah, it was not a dismal failure. But considering their third entry is the one seeing Nintendo falling the farthest off the pedestal, I have no reservations calling the N64 the low point of console releases.
As for Sega: I don't really count the 32X and Sega/Mega CD as "separate consoles". They didn't work without a Genesis and, ergo, were very sophisticated add-ons. And yeah, while a one-hit wonder, Sega still had some momentum they just completely blew. Better marketing and pricing would definitely have made the Saturn a contender. But they stumbled harinterestingut of the gate never to recover.
And finally, take that "third console curse" with a healthy grain of salt. You can stretch the definition infinitely in either direction to prove or disprove it. I certainly did, considering I didn't count Sega's non-US released SG-1000. It was just a somewhat fun parallel to what Sony is going through now with their third entry. ;)
-
Well I'm not going by personal feelings on this one, I'm just going by what the guys at Nintendo said. Iwata and others in countless interviews have said that the N64 did astoundingly well. It's just that the psx did even better. You've got to remember, Nintendo made the console and all the accessories, they owned the cart factories so the companies had to pay them just to get their game manufactured, and on top of that there was a royalty. And it isn't really that those companies jumped ship, it's just that nintendo had a new policy that said "we are going to try to make 3d games" and those companies weren't ready. Anybody who's ever played Castlevania 64 or the psx megaman fps can attest to that. ;)
Nintendo says that the Gamecube days were it's darkest hour. Yeah the NGC sold really well, probably as good as the n64 if not better, but they had invested a lot of money in it to make it competative horsepower-wise with the ps2 and upcoming xbox. So they didn't make nearly as much profit. This is what lead to their current strat btw. So it isn't about sales, it's about profit per-unit.
Yeah that's what I was getting at with Sega.... basically they did really well with the Genesis/MegaDrive and that was it. The Mastersystem wasn't a complete embarrassment, the sgc-1000 wasn't even on the radar and everything else with maybe the exception of the dreamcast was a colossal flop. Can't really judge the DC because by the time sega released it they were bleeding so much money that they pulled the plug before the console wars even started.
-
Nintendo says that the Gamecube days were it's darkest hour.
So are they just pretending the Virtual Boy never happened?
-
Nintendo says that the Gamecube days were it's darkest hour.
So are they just pretending the Virtual Boy never happened?
I don't think it even qualifies for "darkest hour". Darkest eight minutes maybe...
-
Japanese culture to some of us westerners always had that quirky charm
Really? I think they're treacherous perverts.
I think the pervert thing is part of the charm. Ah, sweet sweet fan service... ;)
-
yea i dont get the whole omg look its a new model ps3. then again the ps2 had like 12 models go fig. To me i play more exclusive titles that are on the ps3 than xbox360. plus again sony made the smart choice and choose the right media that would win out the media wars. I had seen a video that claimed the xbox360 wasnt really doing 1080p. that it was just 720p upscaled but hell half the time i cant tell anyway. I have all the systems at my disposal but mostly buy for ps3. It is also my opinion that xbox has the better controller design. after playing on the xbox for a while its hard for me to play the same title on ps3. wish i could get a xbox360 controller that worked on the ps3. and not those lame ass ps3 controllers that clone the xbox360 layout so poorly. course all the systems are collecting dust as im too busy playing mechwarrior online.
-
Nintendo says that the Gamecube days were it's darkest hour.
So are they just pretending the Virtual Boy never happened?
Nintendo never planned for the VB to be a primary product. The VB was a side project of one of their top people that they threw out there to see what might happen. Really, the VB gets an undeserved rep, IMO. It's fun and different than anything else. The only major problem with it was the tripod.
-
Well I'm not going by personal feelings on this one, I'm just going by what the guys at Nintendo said. Iwata and others in countless interviews have said that the N64 did astoundingly well. It's just that the psx did even better. You've got to remember, Nintendo made the console and all the accessories, they owned the cart factories so the companies had to pay them just to get their game manufactured, and on top of that there was a royalty. And it isn't really that those companies jumped ship, it's just that nintendo had a new policy that said "we are going to try to make 3d games" and those companies weren't ready. Anybody who's ever played Castlevania 64 or the psx megaman fps can attest to that. ;)
Nintendo says that the Gamecube days were it's darkest hour. Yeah the NGC sold really well, probably as good as the n64 if not better, but they had invested a lot of money in it to make it competative horsepower-wise with the ps2 and upcoming xbox. So they didn't make nearly as much profit. This is what lead to their current strat btw. So it isn't about sales, it's about profit per-unit.
Fair enough. I was comparing the quality of the N64 as a console to the previous two consoles (especially the SNES) from a gamer's perspective. But yeah, sales-wise, Nintendo wasn't hurting at all. And even though the Gamecube was their least profitable console, I thought it was a much better system. Though it did have the worst Mario 3D game...
Though I don't think the companies were unwilling to make their games 3D. Everyone did. You can count off the number of PSX 2D titles on one hand. It's the reason you couldn't find a game like "Castlevania: Symphony of the Night" in stores as everyone assumed sidescrollers were out of style. And for every good game like "Mario 64", we had dozens like "Contra: Legacy of War" or "Bubsy 3D" that unwisely went into the third dimension. I really never liked that whole generation (save for a handful of exceptional games, of course) - which is why I look towards the N64 as the low point.
Yeah that's what I was getting at with Sega.... basically they did really well with the Genesis/MegaDrive and that was it. The Mastersystem wasn't a complete embarrassment, the sgc-1000 wasn't even on the radar and everything else with maybe the exception of the dreamcast was a colossal flop. Can't really judge the DC because by the time sega released it they were bleeding so much money that they pulled the plug before the console wars even started.
Sega made great games (YMMV) but they couldn't market a console for crap. You can forgive them for the Sega/Mega CD as the industry was CD-ROM gaga at the time. But there was no reason for the 32X. And they botched the launch of the Saturn. And instead of just riding out the current generation, they released the Dreamcast at an awkward time when people were heavily invested in their PSX/N64 and there was the PS2 right around the corner.
-
You can count off the number of PSX 2D titles on one hand.
But it would take all afternoon to count off the number of failed, crappy, nearly unplayable PSX 3D titles. The PSX has a huge library of bad 3D games. Even a lot of the good ones were good despite the way the 3D was implemented. Resident Evil comes to mind here. Try playing the original now. The actual gameplay is awful.
-
Yup and that's what I was getting at. Back in the N64 days nintendo still did "quality control" and by that I mean if they didn't like how your game was turning out they wouldn't publish it until you fixed the issues they had with it. The PSX had little to no quality control and it shows by the 15 barely even playable games to their one quality game. Now developers complained to no end and Nintendo eventually fully dropped this practice, and this is why you get tons of shovelware, even on Nintendo consoles now.
Don't misunderstand the N64 library was much much smaller than the psx, but then again a larger portion of n64 games were of good to high quality. The n64 has a place in my heart because with a few glaring exceptions (cough cough superman 64) it was the most shovelware free console of all time. If you didn't like the n64 library I can only assume you didn't fully explore it. You could pick some random bargain bin cart out of a hat, pop it in and odds are it would at least be pretty fun.
Now to me, and this is just to me, the psx was the start of bad habits in the gaming industry that still go on to this day. Using videos to supplement a sub-par game, bad camera angles on 3d, using fancy graphics (in the case of the psx hi-res textures) to hide the fact that levels are poorly designed ect... All of that came out of the sony console camp. I'm not saying that sony is responsible, far from it, but they created an environment in which such games could exist. It's kind of like building a casino in the middle of town and not expecting crime to follow.
Sega didn't really make great games, or at least they didn't make great console games. 75% of what they released was ports of their arcade hits, which is great, but their console specific titles were always rather lack-luster. Most of their titles, like Nintendo's was third party. Unfortuantely they usually got Nintendo ports as well, and Nintendo had the better hardware. The genesis certainly had it's hits, but nearly every title on the scg and mastersystem was crap. The 32x merely sported some rather terrible ports of more arcade hits and the cd... well it was just awful due to inferior hardware more than anything else. It did a lot of pc ports, the only problem was the console just wasn't powerful enough to run them, so they looked awful. Also a ton of FMV games, and those are always awful.
As for the Virtual Boy, it's a misconception that they lost any money on that one. As the others said, it was a side project. Much like Sega with the DC, they actually pulled the plug on the Vboy before it even got started when their projections said it wasn't going to turn much of a profit. So yeah, they actually made money on the vboy!
I'll have to disagree with chad though... the thing has one huge problem.... namely the red display. Black and white, green, blue... all of these colors are easier on the eyes, and yet the chose to make the screen a bright red. It was so hurtful to the eyes that the games actually had an auto-pause feature to make to stop playing every 15 minutes!
That being said, all of the vboy games are fun and worth playing. Just do it on an emulator so you won't kill yourself. ;)
-
Sega made great games (YMMV) but they couldn't market a console for crap. You can forgive them for the Sega/Mega CD as the industry was CD-ROM gaga at the time. But there was no reason for the 32X. And they botched the launch of the Saturn. And instead of just riding out the current generation, they released the Dreamcast at an awkward time when people were heavily invested in their PSX/N64 and there was the PS2 right around the corner.
Yeah, Sega seemed overly confused at the time as to what they were trying to do. It makes me wonder what might have happened if they jumped straight from the Genesis to the Saturn or Dreamcast, and skipped all the crap.
-
yeah sony should be saving the time money and effort on the next gen conosle not another of the same.
so when the wii U comes out and I have a choice to buy the new wii U or I sell the ps3 I already have so I can turn around and buy the same for more?
like other's already stated it is way to late in the game for that sony as most already have a ps3 by now.
the only thing that kept sony going in this gen to me was it won the HD media war with the blue ray over the HD DVD.
that and they had MGS4 and GTA to back them for the people that did not care about blue ray but expected the best games they played prior to be even more amazing.
so for me if it was the winning of the HD media race and the two exlusive's that held sony afloat otherwise they probably would have been shut out at launch from microsoft if they M$ also had the blue ray and gta4 at launch.
really why would one want the ps3 at launch if there was no blue ray or MGS4 and GTA4.
what's even worse is GTA4 was and is the worst GTA made IMHO I replayed the other's many times and still had fun, never had in the interest to even play the 4rth for more then a hour or two and decided this games is just retarted..
-
You can count off the number of PSX 2D titles on one hand.
But it would take all afternoon to count off the number of failed, crappy, nearly unplayable PSX 3D titles. The PSX has a huge library of bad 3D games. Even a lot of the good ones were good despite the way the 3D was implemented. Resident Evil comes to mind here. Try playing the original now. The actual gameplay is awful.
Heh, it's no surprise that my current PSX collection is embarrassingly small. It's not that I can't find games. It's just I see a bunch of Playstation titles in some garage sale or thrift store and I don't even want to take the time to take the dollar bill out of my pocket to pay for it. And as you said, the good ones aged very, very poorly.
Don't misunderstand the N64 library was much much smaller than the psx, but then again a larger portion of n64 games were of good to high quality. The n64 has a place in my heart because with a few glaring exceptions (cough cough superman 64) it was the most shovelware free console of all time. If you didn't like the n64 library I can only assume you didn't fully explore it. You could pick some random bargain bin cart out of a hat, pop it in and odds are it would at least be pretty fun.
I think what kept a lot of N64 titles elusive for me was the price tag (many of my current carts were actually from Blockbuster clearance, etc.) Star Fox 64 was released at $80 or something (though it came with a Rumble Pak) for cripes sake! Even the "Million Seller" titles were still $40. Part of PSX's success was the fact that many titles were dirt cheap when they gained "Greatest Hit" status. So yeah, for the price of a N64 cart, you could get two to three PSX games - even if they're not as polished.
And what did Sony care anyhow? They were catering to the older, more casual crowd who were not as picky.
But at least nowadays I have my N64 back with my carts so I have the time to give it a second chance.
-
Sony isn't stupid. The "new" PS3 is a marketing device to freshen the market, meaning to re-introduce the machine to those who are going to decide between the three players this coming holiday season. If Sony were to drop the price in light of the Wii-U introduction, this would be seen, likely very incorrectly, by the market as an admission of inferiority to Nintendo's offering. The PS3 packs a lot of gaming and media punch, and even XBOX aficionados consider it to have a bit of an edge on the hardware side.
But we all know that hardware specs, even though important, aren't what makes a great console. The XBOX, as a full package, edges out the PS3 in the eyes of the marketplace, at least according to the sales figures.
IMHO, the Wii-U has a very steep hill to climb. From initial reports, it doesn't seem to have any major advantages over the the other two players, which have very mature hardware and software libraries to match. Consumers who aren't enamored by the Wii-U simply because it's a Nintendo product, or who don't believe that the controller it sports will add anything very significant to the gaming experience, probably won't give it a second glance. In the same vein, folks who already have a functioning PS3, be it fat or slim, probably won't dump it to buy the new version either.
In any event, it's pretty silly to call the latest incarnation of the PS3 "Sony's answer to the Wii-U". If anything, it's Sony's "option", and one that has been out there for quite a while now. Folks seem to expect the game boxes to be media centers as well, and in that regard, the PS3's large hard drive (stock) and Blu-Ray player make the decision pretty easy.....unless, again, one is willing to place the desire to play with a touchsreen ahead of that sort of utility. That last part is really the only "wildcard" in this scenario.
-
Sega made great games (YMMV) but they couldn't market a console for crap. You can forgive them for the Sega/Mega CD as the industry was CD-ROM gaga at the time. But there was no reason for the 32X. And they botched the launch of the Saturn. And instead of just riding out the current generation, they released the Dreamcast at an awkward time when people were heavily invested in their PSX/N64 and there was the PS2 right around the corner.
Yeah, Sega seemed overly confused at the time as to what they were trying to do. It makes me wonder what might have happened if they jumped straight from the Genesis to the Saturn or Dreamcast, and skipped all the crap.
From what I can recall, it wasn't confusion per se, it was... for lack of anything better to call it, bickering amongst the different SEGA regional offices. SEGA USA wanted to do one thing, SEGA JAP wanted something else and SEGA EU kind of sucked it up. A good example would be the Brazil market, even though it wasn't technically distributed by SEGA, the SMS is considered a wild success there (though I don't quite see how approx 2 million consoles from 1989-2005 can be a success ??? ). With SONY, Nintendo, and Microsoft, the different regions don't have a choice so the console options remain consistent. SEGA apparently didn't do it that way so SEGA spread themselves paper thin supporting so many different consoles across so many different markets.
Look at it this way...
You have American developers trying to port any game they can get their hands on to the Genie/SCD/32X platforms. Then you have the Japanese developers trying to wrap their head around the Saturn architecture. Not sure what the EU developers was doing and you have the South American market siphoning off classic titles to their console (Wikipedia cites 70 region ports). That's a big damn army of developers doing their own thing for nearly half a dozen different platforms.
-
Sony isn't stupid. The "new" PS3 is a marketing device to freshen the market, meaning to re-introduce the machine to those who are going to decide between the three players this coming holiday season. If Sony were to drop the price in light of the Wii-U introduction, this would be seen, likely very incorrectly, by the market as an admission of inferiority to Nintendo's offering. The PS3 packs a lot of gaming and media punch, and even XBOX aficionados consider it to have a bit of an edge on the hardware side.
Maybe there's a method to their madness. But six year old consoles don't typically go UP in price. A price reduction - or releasing a separate "budget" model - wouldn't be unusual at all. Especially considering you can fulfill the "media center" and BluRay requirements with a cheaper piece of equipment. And also that people pay little attention to specs anyhow (see Wii's success).
-
Thankfully this generation of consoles will be my last. I have no interest in the Wi-U, the PS4, or the XBOX3. I preferred my 360 to the PS3, and the last system I owned that I truly had a blast playing was my SNES. I'm in the red when it comes to money spent vs games enjoyed; and unless the game companies send me a buncha free games, I'll never get into the black so I'm not going to bother trying.
-
If Sony were to drop the price in light of the Wii-U introduction, this would be seen, likely very incorrectly, by the market as an admission of inferiority to Nintendo's offering.
At this point, however, all the diehard Sony fans who are willing to suck up a higher price probably already have a PS3. At this stage in the PS3's lifestyle, price is going to be a bigger factor.
And besides, look what happened with the PSP Go and Vita. They were too damned expensive (esp. compared to the original PSP) and didn't catch on.
-
Clown on the Wii U all you guys want but there's absolutely nothing else for parents to buy their kids this Christmas. You really think a bratty 10 year old is going to be happy to get a PS3? He got one of those 3 years ago.
If you didn't get in on the pre-order, you're not getting one for at least six months unless you want to go to the store at 1am.
-
Luckily my girl is 2 so I can still get off pretty cheap this holiday season... ;D
-
Luckily my girl is 2 so I can still get off pretty cheap this holiday season... ;D
Just get her a big shiny empty box and she'll be ecstatic. It'll save you the aggravation of watching her ignore some $150 toy and playing with the box instead.
-
If you didn't get in on the pre-order, you're not getting one for at least six months unless you want to go to the store at 1am.
If Nintendo tries to pull this stunt again, it will be the nail in their coffin. They need to meet any market demand which develops, or continue to lose sales to the others. If junior has a 360 and Mom and Dad want to buy him a new system, somehow I don't get the feeling that the Wii-U will be in the running....especially if they have a Wii he never bothers to play anymore (or never played much at all.)
Besides, weren't there similar predictions about the 3DS, while stock was collecting dust on store shelves for weeks after the release? I guess we will see soon enough if that will be the case or not with this new system, but I wouldn't count on turning a pre-order for a quick buck this time around.
-
You can still preorder white bundles at Walmart.
-
You can get ahold of a white one almost anywhere, but you'll actually end up paying MORE money for it so nobody wants it.
This is why I unfortuantely waited to pre-order. I was looking into the charge base for the controller. Apparently it isn't just some plastic stand, it's an actual accessory that will run anywhere from 20 -50 dollars. So you get a 60 dollar game that may or may not be worth it to you (it is the new wii sports afterall) and a 20-50 charger as well as some nice little stands and a discount on all your online purchases. Now you may not want the game, and the discounts might not appeal to you, but you are going to need that charge base so it's actually cheaper to get the black model. I've got to wonder why they even offered the white one now that I've looked into it.
On a side note, Randy worries me sometimes. Charging more for a 6 year old product is never a smart move and I'm not exactly sure how a console selling out of pre-orders one week after pre-orders go on sale is in trouble. I'm not sure how selling out of said pre-orders is "a stunt nintendo pulled" either. The 3ds is selling like hot cakes as well. The price point was only too high to begin with but it quickly became the best-selling handheld after they lowered it.
Also kids frikkin love the wii, so I don't know what you are talking about. Mind you some close-minded adults hate it, but kids... nah most of them are still playing the thing.
I get the feeling you don't know how this holiday thing works either. Parents don't really get a choice what to buy their children when it comes to electronics, unless they want their kids to hate them. A kid writes down what they want, parents choose from the list... that's how it works. Mom and dad don't go out and buy a ps3 because they feel their kids won't get as much use out of the Wii U.... heck most parents don't even know the difference between a ps3 and wii u! Thus the list!
And 8 year old billy, unless he has issues, isn't going to be interested in the 6 year old console that hasn't been on tv lately and thus has left his mind... he's probably going to be interested in that new nintendo console with the touch screen on the controller! PBJ hit the nail on the head... kids care about what's new and pretty much nothing else. Again, I can certainly see why adults wouldn't be impressed by the wii u, but the only way they could have made it more appealing to kids is if they sprinkled it with unicorn poop.
-
For Christmas as a kid, I was happy if I got a used Nintendo game. The only video game system I ever got for Christmas was a n64 when I was older, and I had to work an entire summer for my parents to earn it helping build a garage. I know I sound crotchety here, but if my kid ever wants anything like a new video game console, he either has to work his ass off for it or he is getting a royal "STFU, you already have an arcade machine."
-
You can get ahold of a white one almost anywhere, but you'll actually end up paying MORE money for it so nobody wants it.
On a side note, Randy worries me sometimes. Charging more for a 6 year old product is never a smart move and I'm not exactly sure how a console selling out of pre-orders one week after pre-orders go on sale is in trouble
Well, that's hardly "sold-out". If folks want one badly enough, the extra cash won't matter, correct? But there's no need for you to be "worried" about it.
I'm not sure how selling out of said pre-orders is "a stunt nintendo pulled" either. The 3ds is selling like hot cakes as well. The price point was only too high to begin with but it quickly became the best-selling handheld after they lowered it.
The 3DS is picking up where the DS left off. Kids break the things and DS's aren't the newest and shiniest anymore. Naturally, buyers will pony up the cost of a couple of games to get the newer handheld. It's more the demise of the DS that is driving 3DS sales than anything else. What's of note is that the Vita is starting to eat into it's market share in a substantial way.
Also kids frikkin love the wii, so I don't know what you are talking about. Mind you some close-minded adults hate it, but kids... nah most of them are still playing the thing.
I get the feeling you don't know how this holiday thing works either. Parents don't really get a choice what to buy their children when it comes to electronics, unless they want their kids to hate them. A kid writes down what they want, parents choose from the list... that's how it works. Mom and dad don't go out and buy a ps3 because they feel their kids won't get as much use out of the Wii U.... heck most parents don't even know the difference between a ps3 and wii u! Thus the list!
Based on the games Nintendo is pushing, it doesn't seem to be aimed at the "kid" market anymore. It's starting to tread into deeper waters. They are finally moving into markets where 8-year-old-Billy probably shouldn't be included. But if he is, he may also view Nintendo as a "kid's system" and be looking toward the consoles his older brother has been playing those games on. The Wii-U looks like it's not sure what it wants to be, and the "all things to all markets" thing is getting pretty saturated.
As for what "Mom and Dad" buy, you may not have noticed, but the economy is in rough shape right now. Mom and Dad will be watching their pennies closely, regardless of what junior is blatting about :) If they feel that the value won't be there, then it probably won't happen. The other thing to consider is that a "family" console (i.e one which gets placed in the living room for all to use) will be more attractive this year. Mom and Dad will be looking for features which appeal to them as well.
But you are correct that a certain percentage of sales will go to the kids who have to have the latest "shiny object" and live in households with stable incomes. But those numbers aren't what they used to be.
-
The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone. The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway. The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Wii U may ultimately be a flop but it's going to be a huge item this christmas. They've priced it such that you'd have to be out of your mind or desperate to buy the $300 version. Packing in in a game and making it compatible with older controls was pure genius on Nintendo's part. Who cares if nobody supports Wii controllers in a year? X-Mas 2012 will be phenomenal for them.
-
The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone. The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway. The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.
This is not what I see at all. A lot of my kids' friends have a 3DS. They're too young to bother with a cell phone. There really aren't that many kids under 11 and under that have phones yet that I have seen.
-
The problem with 3DS is any kid with the money to buy one of those can also afford a cell phone. The games on the cell phone are pretty damn fun and a heck of a lot cheaper - and everyone's carrying a cell phone anyway. The original price was an insult to everyone's intelligence.
This is not what I see at all. A lot of my kids' friends have a 3DS. They're too young to bother with a cell phone. There really aren't that many kids under 11 and under that have phones yet that I have seen.
They did massively overprice the 3DS. They seem to have their ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- together now, a halfway decent library of games is forming, and they can thank their lucky stars their competition is Sony, who has no talent at undercutting the competition.
I simply don't see a smartphone as a great gaming device tho. Every time i try to find a game that is worth it's salt I come up empty handed. A whole bunch of great timewasters, but if it is not the game that blows, it is the touchscreen only controls that ruins it all.
-
I simply don't see a smartphone as a great gaming device tho. Every time i try to find a game that is worth it's salt I come up empty handed. A whole bunch of great timewasters, but if it is not the game that blows, it is the touchscreen only controls that ruins it all.
Yeah I guess I'm just a cynical old bastard but touchscreen-only just doesn't click with me either. I have an android phone and an ipad from work, and the only games I've installed on both of them are the free demo of Angry Birds, and Plants vs. Zombies when Amazon was selling it for 99 cents. I just don't care for playing on a touchscreen.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/2906/ (http://www.explosm.net/comics/2906/)
-
There's plenty of great games on smart phones and tablets. $40 for one game vs 40 games is a no brainer. Plus you can run the same games one everything, so there's no hardware fragmentation like you get with handheld consoles.
Friend has a game you like? Click click click and $1 later you own it.
Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.
Anyway, argue with clouds all you want. The market has settled this issue.
:cheers:
-
Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.
A few posts ago your point was that a young kid wants new and shiny and the same thing his friends have. Now your point is that a young kid can have a $50 tablet or iPod.
Elementary school kids want a DS. I know kids with three of them. They might see a tablet and think it's okay if they can watch TV on it at that moment. Turn it into a game system and all they care about is Pokemon. I do know some kids with an iPad too but they use it to watch TV in the car. It's not a game system to them. Those kids have an iPad and a DS.
-
Kid too young for a cell phone? $50 tablet or touch screen MP3 player will play the games, too.
A few posts ago your point was that a young kid wants new and shiny and the same thing his friends have. Now your point is that a young kid can have a $50 tablet or iPod.
Elementary school kids want a DS. I know kids with three of them. They might see a tablet and think it's okay if they can watch TV on it at that moment. Turn it into a game system and all they care about is Pokemon. I do know some kids with an iPad too but they use it to watch TV in the car. It's not a game system to them. Those kids have an iPad and a DS.
My 5yr old son is like that. mommy's tablet plays really cool games but watching Coraline or Tangled on it is more fun. His DS has all his favorite Lego games but Daddy's big game (PS3 or 360) is alot more fun. His all time fav is the N64 but that's hardly the point.
-
The 3DS is picking up where the DS left off. Kids break the things and DS's aren't the newest and shiniest anymore. Naturally, buyers will pony up the cost of a couple of games to get the newer handheld. It's more the demise of the DS that is driving 3DS sales than anything else. What's of note is that the Vita is starting to eat into it's market share in a substantial way.
What exactly are you basing this on? The Vita came out less than a year ago and the old, crusty Wii from 2006 is still selling more units daily. The original DS from 2004 has pretty much been neck and neck with the Vita since it's launch. I guess you could argue that the Vita has taken about 50% of the market share from the original DS over the past year. If you want to talk about 3DS, it sells 5 for every 1 Vita. The Vita software sales are non-existent.
Everyone loves to act like Nintendo is on the brink of closing shop, but the numbers don't lie. There isn't a more resilient console and portable game manufacturer out there. They almost single-handedly rejuvenated the industry after the crash and since then have ALWAYS been at the forefront. They might have some missteps every once in a while but to count them out is just silly.
-
The Vita came out less than a year ago and the old, crusty Wii from 2006 is still selling more units daily.
Handhelds <> console systems. Different markets entirely.
The original DS from 2004 has pretty much been neck and neck with the Vita since it's launch. I guess you could argue that the Vita has taken about 50% of the market share from the original DS over the past year. If you want to talk about 3DS, it sells 5 for every 1 Vita. The Vita software sales are non-existent.
The Vita is targeted at a different subsection of the handheld gaming market than the DS. Extremely few will give a Vita to a 6-year old who just lost or broke his DS. It competes more with the 3DS, which is a "crossover" system, meaning that it is targeted toward an older crowd as well as the kids, like the Wii-U, based on the titles being promoted for it. So only a certain percentage of those 3DS systems sold were ever purchased by consumers who might have viewed the Vita as an option. What that percentage is, I couldn't tell you. But if you want to speculate that 50% of the 3DS sales were to the same market segment where the Vita has positioned itself, the market penetration of the Vita would be significant (3:1 in favor of the 3DS). If you speculate that more than 50% of these sales were to younger kids, as is likely the case, that ratio isn't as good.
Everyone loves to act like Nintendo is on the brink of closing shop, but the numbers don't lie. There isn't a more resilient console and portable game manufacturer out there. They almost single-handedly rejuvenated the industry after the crash and since then have ALWAYS been at the forefront. They might have some missteps every once in a while but to count them out is just silly.
I don't think anyone is "counting them out". They have a loyal following, and the younger kids who grew up with a Nintendo handheld in their backpacks will always have a soft spot for them. But one thing I am pretty confident of is that they won't be able to break out of the niche market they have confined themselves to for so long. Rather than offer bleeding-edge gaming experiences demanded by the so-called "hardcore" gaming consumer, they seem to be happy trying to differentiate themselves with a new gimmick paired with dated hardware. In some cases, like the Wii, it works incredibly well and captures the attention of a jaded consumer. But it also has the problem of potential backlash when the gimmicks wear thin, and little is left in the way of other capabilities to fill the void. The 3DS is still a decent handheld, for it's primary audience, even if the display gimmick is taken out of the equation. With no-one but themselves to compete with in that market segment (younger gamers) it will likely continue to do well, based on the new, and/or potentially lower in the future, price point.
The Wii-U is new and facing stiff competition from established players in the market it appears to be aiming for. When you take the touchscreen control from the equation, you are left with a console which, at this point, most are unsure as to whether even has technical parity with the 6 and 7 year old systems already on the market. It's also one which is hobbled by it's lack of storage and optical media (Blu-Ray/DVD) drive. As I stated earlier, it's success or failure will hinge on whether there are truly compelling uses for what is an older and tried pairing of technologies. I'm admittedly skeptical, as are Nintendo's investors, as to whether they can pull it off. Only time will tell.
*edit*
As long as I'm typing, I might as well add some more thoughts about the PS3 offering. Sony, like MS, put their hardware out at a net loss and rely on software proceeds to make up the difference. They do start to make money on the hardware, but not usually until the 2nd or 3rd revision, as prices on components fall and more of the functionality can be handled by fewer, newly designed components. Sony may be at this tipping point where the PS3 can actually provide them with a small hardware profit, which opens up the possibility of lower costs to developers, which in turn will promote creation of more titles for the system. This is one area where the PS3 is trailing the 360 in a substantial way, so it makes sense. While I don't have any inside knowledge, I have heard it stated that Nintendo structures their hardware offerings to generate profit out of the gate. This would go a long way to explain the hardware they choose for their systems, and the missing mass-storage devices and media drives. The PS3 may be 6 years old, but there is still a lot of value in the console, at the price they set.
-
That's quite a bit of speculation and the overall sales numbers are what count. Whatever demographic Vita is aimed at, it isn't hitting it. One game cracked the top 100 on the latest charts and it came in at number 98. And it's a game aimed at young Japanese girls. Little Big Planet is a possible system seller and it sure isn't aimed at the hardcore, adult gamer. I think the sales will start to increase as the library of games expands and they do a price drop but there just isn't any evidence that Vita is making a dent in 3DS right now.
Maybe the touch screen on Wii U is a gimmick. Maybe the hardware will be surpassed in a year. It doesn't change the fact that the undisputed top software publisher will be exclusive to the Wii U. You can call that niche, but that's a heck of a niche if I've ever seen one. I'm not sure why you are applauding Vita for succeeding failing at reaching its core demographic but are chastising Nintendo for continually succeeding at reaching theirs. Yes, the big N is trying to get that other half of the pie that they have struggled to get since the N64. Are "hardcore" players going to migrate to Wii U to get their Call of Duty or Mass Effect fix? Probably not. People are used to playing those on their Xbox or Playstation. But once they see a new Zelda or Metroid or Mario, they will certainly be interested in the system. It's not going to reach the numbers that Wii did. It's not going to be the new home for Call of Duty type games. But it will be a successful system.
-
That's quite a bit of speculation and the overall sales numbers are what count. Whatever demographic Vita is aimed at, it isn't hitting it.
There's a lot more observation than speculation in that last post.
The execs at Sony seem to have a different opinion (but execs at video game companies always do.) They have officially stated that the Vita is selling at levels they feel good about. Sure they would like them to be higher, but they aren't concerned at this moment in it's life. There are a lot of PSP owners out there who don't want to give them up just yet, and the Vita is still quite a bit more expensive than a 3DS. Several million units isn't bad for a 7-month old handheld, especially given the higher price and narrower target demographic. If you consider that the Vita has likely pulled a good portion of those sales from the demographic Nintendo is now attempting to court, it's not hard to see the dent it's making.
Maybe the touch screen on Wii U is a gimmick. Maybe the hardware will be surpassed in a year. It doesn't change the fact that the undisputed top software publisher will be exclusive to the Wii U. You can call that niche, but that's a heck of a niche if I've ever seen one. I'm not sure why you are applauding Vita for succeeding failing at reaching its core demographic but are chastising Nintendo for continually succeeding at reaching theirs. Yes, the big N is trying to get that other half of the pie that they have struggled to get since the N64. Are "hardcore" players going to migrate to Wii U to get their Call of Duty or Mass Effect fix? Probably not. People are used to playing those on their Xbox or Playstation. But once they see a new Zelda or Metroid or Mario, they will certainly be interested in the system. It's not going to reach the numbers that Wii did. It's not going to be the new home for Call of Duty type games. But it will be a successful system.
Honestly, I can't wait to see how they do. This will be Nintendo's first foray into making the types of games prevalent in this now aging generation of consoles. You state that they are "the undisputed top software publisher", and even though I'm sure you will find quite a few folks who disagree, they are now going to get a chance to show if this is or isn't the case. They've operated behind the curve in recent years, and their hardware has limited them to great extent. Now that they are working with hardware that is close, or possibly even a little better than the "norm", it will be much easier to see if they can truly compete with the other big publishers. Their franchises are a double-edged sword. Died-in-the-wool Nintendo fans clamor for new games based on them, while those not so entrenched behind the company view it as "ehh...another mario game". That's a tough line to walk, but I suspect that third party publishers will be called upon heavily to fill the gaps. Hopefully for those who make the Wii-U their only system, the third party publishers won't skimp on the effort, as they have done often in the past.
-
There's a lot more observation than speculation in that last post.
This will be Nintendo's first foray into making the types of games prevalent in this now aging generation of consoles.
But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures? I'm doing the latter. I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation? I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:
1. Wii Sports Wii 2006 Sports Nintendo
2. Mario Kart Wii Wii 2008 Racing Nintendo
3. Wii Sports Resort Wii 2009 Sports Nintendo
4. Wii Play Wii 2006 Misc Nintendo
5. New Super Mario Bros. DS 2006 Platform Nintendo
6. New Super Mario Bros. Wii Wii 2009 Platform Nintendo
7. Nintendogs DS 2005 Simulation Nintendo
8. Wii Fit Wii 2007 Sports Nintendo
9. Mario Kart DS DS 2005 Racing Nintendo
10. Wii Fit Plus
11. Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day DS 2005 Misc Nintendo
12. Kinect Adventures! X360 2010 Misc Microsoft Game Studios
13. Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day DS 2005 Misc Nintendo
14. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
15. Pokémon Black / White Version DS 2010 Role-Playing Nintendo
So the top selling "hardcore" title comes in at number 14. 12 of the top 13 titles are published by Nintendo. I haven't declared them the top software publisher because I have a high opinion of them, I do so because because their games are always tearing up the sales charts. For the record, I own all 3 current consoles (and a whole lot of older ones) and even ignoring the Blu-Ray which is used every day, my PS3 has been seeing more action lately than my Wii and 3DS. I'm trying to be as objective as possible using real sales figures and not factor in my opinion or what I observe my friends playing.
-
It's kinda weird that you guys are so passionate about this, I thought we were all grown men and not 12. If you've got a job, just buy them all. That's been my strategy for years.
-
Are those actual consumer sales or pre-sale numbers to merchants? There's a difference.
-
I did buy them all. I have a Wii U on preorder and will keep a close eye on what Microsoft and Sony have to offer in their new systems. I am disagreeing with some of things stated in this thread. Maybe sales figures (something I generally don't pay attention to) are childish but how else can one back up their argument with facts?
-
Are those actual consumer sales or pre-sale numbers to merchants? There's a difference.
It says units sold so I don't believe it's that "units shipped" crap. Sony is the one who's pretty notorious for using that terminology so I don't think it would hurt my argument even if they are padding the numbers that way.
-
But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures? I'm doing the latter. I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation? I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:
Once you remove the hardware pack ins, and the handheld titles the list looks like this:
1. Mario Kart Wii Wii 2008 Racing Nintendo
2. Wii Sports Resort Wii 2009 Sports Nintendo
3. Wii Play Wii 2006 Misc Nintendo
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii Wii 2009 Platform Nintendo
5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Consumers who wished to buy a piece of hardware had no choice as to the game they purchased, so it doesn't belong in the list of software sales. Unless you really want to compare "Kinect Adventures" to "New Super Mario Bros." in the merit department. The latter is obviously a much superior game.
And looking at DS software sales isn't appropriate either. It's a very different market than the one I thought we were discussing. If you are going to include those, then you have to look at all video games from any piece of hardware currently "out there". For example, as of March 2012, Angry birds: Space hit 700 million downloads. Why isn't Rovio included in your list, right at the top?
The Wii sales numbers are an anomaly and underscore the importance of the Wii-U attaining high sell-through numbers. The Wii was a massive sales success, so there are a lot of those consoles in the hands of consumers looking for something decent to play on it. The sales numbers for Nintendo titles underscores just how poor the third party offerings were for the Wii, leading to high adoption rates for titles from the only company who put in the effort to try to make that system shine. That's not to say that they weren't quality titles, but Nintendo was "shooting fish in a barrel". They don't release their games for any other platforms, so seeing how they fare "head to head" with other developers on those platforms has always been an impossibility. And thanks to the meager hardware base of the Wii, 3rd party developers had to strip their titles down, or re-engineer them completely with a "special version", so they could not shine as they did on other platforms. Most simply did not put in the effort, or felt that stripped down versions would damage the franchise, thus the "special version" for the Wii.
It's kinda weird that you guys are so passionate about this, I thought we were all grown men and not 12. If you've got a job, just buy them all. That's been my strategy for years.
I have a job, and I have all the systems which appeal to me. And, some which don't. That includes the Wii, but not a DS of any incarnation. My last Nintendo handheld was an Advance (of at least a couple of incarnations) and I like them, but also have a few PSPs, so they don't get used, even when I want a game to take with me. If I had to sit on a subway 2 hours a day, I'd be more interested in the handhelds, but if I want to play a game, I do it on my 16' projector, or one of the plasmas. My young nephews and nieces love their DS's, but they like different games than I am interested in.
And why is it weird that folks on a site dedicated to building arcade machines, and in a forum meant for discussing consoles are passionate about a discussion regarding video game consoles and developers? Maybe it's weird that you are here calling us weird :D
Besides, if one were ever to do a "grown up" thing like invest in the companies which fuel the hobby, not having a discussion like this, or understanding the mechanics of a marketplace would be financial suicide.
-
But are you observing what games your peers are playing or looking at actual sales figures? I'm doing the latter. I have plenty of friends who play Call of Duty but how popular is it on the overall sales chart for this generation of consoles? What types of games ARE prevalent this generation? I present the top 15 games of this (7th) generation of video games:
Once you remove the hardware pack ins, and the handheld titles the list looks like this:
1. Mario Kart Wii Wii 2008 Racing Nintendo
2. Wii Sports Resort Wii 2009 Sports Nintendo
3. Wii Play Wii 2006 Misc Nintendo
4. New Super Mario Bros. Wii Wii 2009 Platform Nintendo
5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
FYI, All those games you have left are still pack-ins. Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros were wii pack ins and Call of Duty MW3 was a PS3 and xbox Pack in. Wii Sports Resort and Wii play were controller bundle deals.
-
FYI, All those games you have left are still pack-ins. Mario Kart and New Super Mario Bros were wii pack ins and Call of Duty MW3 was a PS3 and xbox Pack in. Wii Sports Resort and Wii play were controller bundle deals.
They weren't primarily pack-ins. You weren't forced to buy those titles to get any other piece of hardware you might have wanted without them. But it does still end up skewing things further, as folks would probably end up with them without specifically seeking them out.
-
They weren't primarily pack-ins. You weren't forced to buy those titles to get any other piece of hardware you might have wanted without them. But it does still end up skewing things further, as folks would probably end up with them without specifically seeking them out.
Nearly everybody who bought Wii Play bought it because it came with a Wiimote for about $10 more than just a Wiimote. That is a controller packin title.
-
Nearly everybody who bought Wii Play bought it because it came with a Wiimote for about $10 more than just a Wiimote. That is a controller packin title.
I'd be all for pulling that one from the list, but I give it the benefit of the doubt. I bought the bundle for that same reason, but made a conscious choice to spend the extra $10 to play the game. In that sense, I "bought" the title because it was cheap, and looked interesting, but it was still something I chose to do. I do agree that at the full price as a non-bundled game, it would not have fared as well.
-
I don't want to bring cell phone games and apps into this as I think DS and PSP are much closer to consoles than phones. The hardware is made by the usual suspects and a huge chunk of the games are ports, sequels or reworked games that appear on their big brothers. Even since the days of GBA, the portables were interfacing with consoles. Heck, the SNES could play Gameboy games and Game Gear could play Master System games. But, fine. I'll just focus on the main consoles.
I brought up the sales list because I stated that Nintendo was the undisputed top publisher right now and this alone would attract many gamers to the Wii U. Since no one agrees with me, I would like to know which publisher everyone else thinks is at the top right now. I didn't say to list your favorite. I am talking about which publisher has the potential to sell the most games on and has the most solid IP's to push a new system.
-
I don't disagree with your assessment at all. Nintendo is the top publisher, they make the best games and add on devices, and that drives good sales.
Here is why I see people shying from this system. The problem is that a lot of 3rd party game makers don't want to touch Nintendo. It's too much work. Their system is underpowered from competition, require special consideration on how to make the controls work, and have to jump through Nintendo's hoops to publish. 3rd party publishers want to program one game and port it out to each system. It takes considerable work. While the wii u would not be underpowered immediately, it would be after Sony and MS release their next systems.
People tend to shy away from a system if it leaves them without games like Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Madden, etc. And if they actually get those games on the Nintendo, they will be dumbed down versions, they will haphazardly try to incorporate Nintendo's special controls, and often the release will be even delayed.
-
^I don't think Nintendo is going to make big strides with third parties on the Wii U. The reasons you listed are absolutely valid. My point is that you can't write off the entire system because of this. This is nothing new for Nintendo but they've had relative (N64/Cube) to high (Wii) success despite this shortcoming. The first and second party offerings are going to be enough to make Wii U a compelling and successful system. Randy is saying that because they are shifting some of their focus to win over the "hardcore", Call of Duty-type demographic that the entire system will fall flat. I think they will still deliver their usual piece of the pie in spades and once again fail to capture the rest of the pie. Nintendo's system are always must own IMO because of the incredibly strong games you can only get through them. It isn't the ONLY system gaming enthusiasts should own but neither are the other 2.
-
I can't help but think that if Nintendo made a system that was as powerful as the competition and didn't make standard controls such a side option, they would be dominating.
-
Randy is saying that because they are shifting some of their focus to win over the "hardcore", Call of Duty-type demographic that the entire system will fall flat. I think they will still deliver their usual piece of the pie in spades and once again fail to capture the rest of the pie. Nintendo's system are always must own IMO because of the incredibly strong games you can only get through them. It isn't the ONLY system gaming enthusiasts should own but neither are the other 2.
You really should at least read what I write before attempting to paraphrase;
I don't think anyone is "counting them out". They have a loyal following, and the younger kids who grew up with a Nintendo handheld in their backpacks will always have a soft spot for them. But one thing I am pretty confident of is that they won't be able to break out of the niche market they have confined themselves to for so long.
Is that really different from what you wrote above? It isn't the fact they they are positioning themselves to compete in the "hardcore" market, but that they are doing it at least 4 years too late with hardware that is unlikely to make that demographic take serious notice.
If Nintendo's main selling point are their dated franchises, how much of the mainstream market are they really going to get? There are always going to be those who want to play the latest Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. and Nintendo will have them over a barrel. They will have no other option but to buy their latest system in order to do it. As for the rest of the market, they will need to find the controller scheme to be a "must have", or there will be no real compelling reason to shell out the money. And with newer consoles from the two "heavy hitters" just around the corner, coupled with the current weak economy, how many are going to pick up the Wii-U when, outside of those Nintendo franchises, it's getting mainly ports of games they already own, or can play as well on their existing systems?
As I stated before, I don't have crystal ball and can't know how the "casual" market will respond to the touchpad control scheme. I was wrong about the number of people who would buy into the Wii hype, but I was much closer on the end result. Nintendo's massive success in the marketing of the Wii may end up being what dooms the Wii-U. Consumers tend to have a long memory, and whether or not they still see Nintendo as an attractive option will also depend heavily upon how much value they felt they got from the Wii. I don't think it's fair to "write them off" because of it, but many have.
-
I can't help but think that if Nintendo made a system that was as powerful as the competition and didn't make standard controls such a side option, they would be dominating.
I dunno about that. Part of what made the Wii attractive in the first place was its low price point; esp. compared to the PS3. And Nintendo still made profit on it, whereas Sony sold PS3s at a loss.
-
I wanted me a vita but since i dont hardly touch the ps3 i saw it as another toy that would sit and not get too much use. tho with cell phones unless you got a ios or android its not 100% that one game will work on more than one phone. I know my dumbphone uses java but hell even then half the java stuff is too much for it.
-
There are always going to be those who want to play the latest Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. and Nintendo will have them over a barrel.
Is it wrong for me to enjoy bracing said barrel? :D
Right now I'm of the mindset that I'll be able to hold off on this console for at least 6 months. And probably longer if a price cut has not yet occurred (and I feel it's imminent), or if more games I'm interested in (like those IPs you mentioned) aren't out yet. For once, I'm going to be able to sit back and relax for a bit.
-
To the OP:
I don't get the new one either, but somehow new PS models keep coming out and keep selling. Then again, I had a fat PS2 that never died, so I may be an outlier.
As for why Sony is successful: 1) Japan, 2) even though their BD capabilities may suck compared to other devices, most consumers don't know/care about the difference, 3) brand loyalty.
wish i could get a xbox360 controller that worked on the ps3. and not those lame ass ps3 controllers that clone the xbox360 layout so poorly.
wut?
I'm sorry if this is construed as flaming, but this is easily the most dumb, least thought-out statement I've read on the internet in the last two months. Allow me to enlighten you.
Nintendo was responsible for developing what we consider the "standard" controller layout in 1990 with the SNES controller, which improved upon previous controllers with an ergonomic design and the 4-button pad with L/R triggers. This also began the convention of labeling the buttons A/B/X/Y/L/R, although the SNES controllers were read from right to left, as opposed to the western left to right. The ever-quirky Nintendo has since pioneered EVERY SINGLE innovation that you now hold in your hands. Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.
Sony launched their PSX in 1994, and rather than trying to reinvent the wheel alongside Nintendo they chose to improve upon what Nintendo had already learned. They are responsible for the addition of L2/R2 triggers during their initial PSX run and later for the addition of the twin analog sticks in 1996. Sony has since added force feedback, analog buttons, and motion sensors to their controllers to keep up with the competition, but the initial design has remained largely unchanged since this date.
When M$ entered the market six years later they tried to blend the best of all worlds. They put Sony's PSX button layout onto Sega's Dreamcast pad design, then bumped up the size to make it more appropriate for adult hands and switched the left stick with the D-pad to make it more ergonomic. They took the sum of all knowledge garnered up until that point and still screwed it up. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/03/25/)
M$ controllers, to this date, have been plagued by issues, while Sony stands strong with their initial improvements upon Nintendo's technology. Sure, the six-axis motion controls may be worthless, but motion-sensing technology is worthless in general when you have buttons and sticks that can perform the same tasks. Xbox controllers, on the other hand, have suffered from crappy batteries, crappy cables, the inability to use both crappy batteries and crappy cables to support each other, analog sticks only beat out in crappiness by the original N64 controllers, D-pads that might as well not exist (if you don't believe me go check out some fighting game forums and see what lengths they go to modifying their 360 pads), crappy headsets, and expensive proprietary peripherals, just to name a few.
You know what? I'm going to go ahead and add 4) the controller and 5) because Sony actually sees its customer base as more than a cheap date to my reasons above. Free online play and the lack of being gouged by proprietary crap will keep me loyal to the PS3 for a long time, not to mention the fact that early firmware supported dual-booting Linux, of all things, on your console.
-
Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.
PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock). Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller. The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.
No standard system controller has ever had force feedback. Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there. Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.
-
Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.
PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock). Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller. The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.
No standard system controller has ever had force feedback. Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there. Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.
Sony and Sega both launched their analogue controllers in response to Nintendo's N64. I consider the Vectrex among the "oddities," as it took over a decade for the idea to return to the market and stick.
As for "force feedback," I chose that phrase over "haptics" because I figured it would be more recognizable among a forum of gamers. My point still remains valid, however, despite the semantics.
-
Excluding oddities such as the paddle controller for the old Atari systems, Nintendo was the first to bring you analog controllers, force feedback, and motion-sensing technology.
PS1 had analog sticks on the controller (Dual Shock). Vectrex had an analog stick on the controller. The Saturn had a true analog controller though it didn't come with the system.
No standard system controller has ever had force feedback. Some have tactile feedback and yes the N64 rumble pak was first there. Tactile feedback is very different from force feedback.
Sony and Sega both launched their analogue controllers in response to Nintendo's N64. I consider the Vectrex among the "oddities," as it took over a decade for the idea to return to the market and stick.
As for "force feedback," I chose that phrase over "haptics" because I figured it would be more recognizable among a forum of gamers. My point still remains valid, however, despite the semantics.
Don't forget the 5200.
-
Don't forget the 5200.
Yes, and the Apple II, Tandy Color, and PC computers which used analog joysticks for gaming, long before the N64. If there was any innovation at all by Nintendo in this regard, it was the physical shape of the device. It was, to my knowledge, the first analog "thumbstick".
-
my system buying habits...
bought the Sega Master system...passed on the NES. No reason really.
bought the SNES... passed on the genisis. SNES tech and graphics where superior in my mind.
bought the N64- passed on the PS1. N64 had zelda titles coming...bought the system solely for that. PS had some nifty racing games, but not any kind of deal breaker. the cd player functionality was cool, but meh...i have a diskman.
bought Xbox, gamecube - passed on PS2. At this time, the PS2 didn't have anything i wanted. None of the games where appealing in the slightest.
bought xbox360, wii - passed on PS3. Admittedly I bought the 360 only about a year ago now whilst the wii was bought 6 years ago, but PS3...you disappoint. Your games don't look any better than the 360's the wii is it's own genre... also i haven't turned on my wii in probably 6-8 months now. i probably could have passed on the wii. but for it's price point, the PS3 was the real dog of the bunch. Blueray was the only thing going for it after release and even that, i haven't adopted...I stream HD video to my TV from my computer. There is no need.
so now we are at what now?
wii u
xbox720 / xbox8 / xboxinfinity (or whatever they are gong to call it)
and the PS4
across all these systems one thing seems synonymous between them... GPU integrated with the CPU (nintendo and microsoft going with ibm power pc chips and sony going with AMD)
this means all the systems will be similarly stacked. guess it's going to come down to gimmicks and games then.
-
Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!
-
Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!
The one with 8 joysticks, 500 buttons, and 15000 games? ;D
-
Between all these consoles, handhelds, tablets, portables, smartphones... TOO MANY GADGETS!!! Just give me my arcade machine!
The one with 8 joysticks, 500 buttons, and 15000 games? ;D
some site mentioned the possibility of a screen in the next xbox controller. :dunno
-
Forget all these gimmicks. I just want the Holodeck. :P
-
Forget all these gimmicks. I just want the Holodeck. :P
Amen.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/181506/The_Holodeck_may_be_possible_but_its_going_to_need_game_designers.php#.UKe-SofLSjO (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/181506/The_Holodeck_may_be_possible_but_its_going_to_need_game_designers.php#.UKe-SofLSjO)
-
Forget all these gimmicks. I just want the Holodeck. :P
I am such a terrible person. Whenever I think of Holodeck I think of p0rn. I don't mean too but it's there, the first think I'd want to check out... minus the smell-o-vision.