March Console (and Portable) Sales Numbers

[Eaglesfan27]

They are out today. Here are the main numbers as posted by Gamespot which uses the NPD Report:


Top Systems Sold:

1. Nintendo DS - 508,000
2. PlayStation 2 - 280,000
3. Wii (259,000)
4. Xbox 360 (199,000)
5. PlayStation Portable (180,000)
6. Game Boy Advance (148,000)
7. PlayStation 3 (130,000)


Top Games Sold in March:

1. God of War II--PS2--833,000
2. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2--Xbox 360--394,000
3. Guitar Hero 2--Xbox 360--291,000
4. Wii Play with Wii Remote--Wii--273,000
5. MotorStorm--PS3--199,000
6. Diddy Kong Racing--Nintendo DS--189,000
7. Spectrobes--Nintendo DS--165,000
8. MLB 2K7--Xbox 360--165,000
9. MLB '07: The Show--PS2--164,000
10. Def Jam Icon--Xbox 360--148,000

[Eaglesfan27]

A few comments:

- Nice to see a game that an FOFC member had a part in creating doing so well on the list :)


- Guitar Hero 2 came out VERY late in the reporting cycle and I wouldn't be surprised to see significantly higher numbers in the April report.

- This could be just Nintendo spin, but it rings true: "The Wii is the fastest selling new console in over a decade over its first five months of availability."

[Groundhog]

A few comments:
- Nice to see a game that an FOFC member had a part in creating doing so well on the list :)


Which game, and who??

[Eaglesfan27]

Which game, and who??

#2 on the list, GRAW 2. Gstelmack (unless my memory is extremely faulty in which case I apologize for the misinformation.)

[terpkristin]

I guess I'm somewhat surprised that Spectrobes and Diddy Kong made it to the top 10 games sold in March.

Even though Pokemon Diamond/Pearl is coming out late in April, I'm guessing it will be on a top 20 list.

I assume this list is for US sales only, or is it worldwide?

/tk

[Eaglesfan27]

These lists are USA only.

[sabotai]

Should be noted that this was a 5 week reporting period. In which case, both PS3 and 360 numbers are bad. (And the Wii sales units are constrained by supply. They again sold every one they shipped.)

[spleen1015]

More Diddy Kong Racing sold than PS3's.

Yeah, that sucker's not in trouble.

[sabotai]

dola - (Edit: Damn you spleen!)

(puts on 360 fanboy hat, apparently) And for the second month in a row, the PS3 sells fewer units in one month than either the PS2 or the 360 ever have in the history of their consoles, and in a 5-week reporting period with ample supply.

And now Mizzou has to stop using his favorite comeback, that the PS3 is outselling the 360 "at the same period in time overall", because it's no longer true (it had to sell more than 200,000 to stay ahead, I believe).

(takes off 360 fanboy hat) But the 360 came dangerously close to their lowest one month sales (187,000), and would have gone lower if this weren't a 5-week reporting month. Microsoft has been in position to slay the dragon since Sony announced the price of the PS3, and they've done nothing but let the dragon sleep peacefully. Eventually, dragons wake up.

[SackAttack]

March is historically a pretty slow month, God of War II notwithstanding.

I was SHOCKED when Sony chose a March release for the PSP back in 2004. Just piss poor planning with no games on the immediate horizon, instead of waiting for summer or fall of that year.

So the relatively slow numbers are pretty yawn-inducing for me across the board.

PS2 sales look to still be pretty robust, though. I guess a lot of that comes back to...God of War II.

[stevew]

Pretty odd that Nintendo moved about 100k less Wii's in a 5 week month than they did in the previous 4 week month. I wonder what the explanation is for that, if it isn't directly tied towards them having met their fiscal sales year goal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Man, everything was really slow this month. Not terribly surprising as it was March, which someone already mentioned is usually a slow month. PS2 is obviously a monster winner out of this month. I know that God of War is a big franchise, but I was shocked that we'd actually see a 'system seller' on a last-gen system. That's just nutty. I suppose it's good for Sony to some extent as it does provide some profit to offset the PS3 losses for now. But I'm sure they'd rather be selling more PS3's. The argument regarding support of a last-gen console when the new console is well into its life cycle will likely be one that is revisited quite a bit in the coming years.

PS3 sold roughly the same number of units without any big games, so I suppose that's a wash or a slight negative in that I'm sure they would have still liked to see further growth. However, they obviously will get a major worldwide boost from the Euro release, so I'm sure they'll blow that trumpet for all it's worth. I think one of them already did. I do think it's pretty safe to say that Sony didn't meet their target of 6 million sold by the end of March. Reports on a couple of the articles state that it likely was around 4 million sold at the end of March.

Wii sales were down 23% this month. Nintendo is really milking the supply/demand playing card at this point, perhaps too much. We'll assume that they sold every one of the consoles that they released. How do you manufacture 23% LESS units now 5 months after release???? Answer? You don't. They're holding back stock at this point. Note to Nintendo: the demand is there. You can stop trying to artificially inflate demand just for the sake of doing it. If you do it much longer, you're likely to create buyer resentment for those that still have passing or impulsive interest at this point. Sell the units while the demand is still high.

The 360 is the big loser this month. They only outsold the PS3 by 70K units in the U.S. We'll ignore the obvious that the PS3 outsold them in Europe due to the launch. Factor in the fact that the PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan at a clip of 13-15K a week and you have a virtual tie between the two big next-gen consoles in the US/Japan markets. That shouldn't be happening this quickly. 360 in a virtual tie with the PS3 when the PS3 is reportedly struggling? Ouch, Microsoft. If anything, this may be a statement by the market that they're heavily waiting for price drops in the fall before considering a purchase of either the 360 or PS3.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More Diddy Kong Racing sold than PS3's.

Yeah, that sucker's not in trouble.

3 1/2 times more God of War sold than Wii's.

Yeah, that sucker's not in trouble.

(end sarcasm)

[Pumpy Tudors]

I know that the main focus on this thread (and the previous one) is the "next-gen" debate among Xbox 360/PS3/Wii, but you know what I'm surprised about? The Game Boy Advance is still selling. It's got to be a price issue, right? How much is a Game Boy Advance SP these days? $79.99? I assume that many of those sales are to parents who are looking for something inexpensive for the kids. I don't know much about Nintendo systems, but I would assume that there's a pretty big library of games that can play on the GBA. That's got to be a nice selling point, too.

I guess I was just surprised to see that the GBA is still on the map. From my uninformed standpoint, I would have guessed that once the DS got its footing, the GBA would fade away pretty quickly. Obviously, the system still has legs. Good for Nintendo.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess I was just surprised to see that the GBA is still on the map. From my uninformed standpoint, I would have guessed that once the DS got its footing, the GBA would fade away pretty quickly. Obviously, the system still has legs. Good for Nintendo.

The GBA is much like the PS2. Tons of games (especially cheaper used games) and a price-entry point that even people who don't make a lot of money can afford. Nintendo and Sony are both going to be very happy if they can get another holiday season out of these consoles.

[gstelmack]

- Nice to see a game that an FOFC member had a part in creating doing so well on the list :)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[gstelmack]

The 360 is the big loser this month. They only outsold the PS3 by 70K units in the U.S. We'll ignore the obvious that the PS3 outsold them in Europe due to the launch. Factor in the fact that the PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan at a clip of 13-15K a week and you have a virtual tie between the two big next-gen consoles in the US/Japan markets. That shouldn't be happening this quickly. 360 in a virtual tie with the PS3 when the PS3 is reportedly struggling? Ouch, Microsoft. If anything, this may be a statement by the market that they're heavily waiting for price drops in the fall before considering a purchase of either the 360 or PS3.

Your last statement may well be the only correct thing you said in that whole paragraph. PS3 this close to launch being outsold by 70K in the US, when demand should still be high? With launch numbers in Europe the only thing keeping them afloat in the numbers war for ONE MONTH? And the 360 is the loser? The 360 keeps pulling ahead of the PS3 for the next-gen console battle. 130K in any month is an abysmal number for a "market-leading" console. sabotai had the key point in this thread.

While Microsoft would love to do better in Japan, Japan is not a major market for games. You can't ignore either Europe or North America if you want to survive, but non-Japanese-made games traditionally don't sell well in Japan. Yet somehow US and European game makers still make money. If Sony wins Japan (and Nintendo seems to be their main competition), but Microsoft wins US and Europe, Microsoft wins.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Your last statement may well be the only correct thing you said in that whole paragraph. PS3 this close to launch being outsold by 70K in the US, when demand should still be high? With launch numbers in Europe the only thing keeping them afloat in the numbers war for ONE MONTH? And the 360 is the loser? The 360 keeps pulling ahead of the PS3 for the next-gen console battle. 130K in any month is an abysmal number for a "market-leading" console. sabotai had the key point in this thread.

While Microsoft would love to do better in Japan, Japan is not a major market for games. You can't ignore either Europe or North America if you want to survive, but non-Japanese-made games traditionally don't sell well in Japan. Yet somehow US and European game makers still make money. If Sony wins Japan (and Nintendo seems to be their main competition), but Microsoft wins US and Europe, Microsoft wins.

I noticed you only quoted one part of my post. I mentioned that the PS3 didn't do well for the month and is behind what they had as their sales target for March by about 2 million units. However, that doesn't excuse what Microsoft is doing right now. Microsoft is losing Japan and is not doing well in Europe considering they had a 1 1/2 year head start on Sony. Microsoft is allowing the PS3 to remain a player for far too long at this point. Even their numbers in the U.S., while still not falling below the PS3 level, are far from spectacular.

As far as the 'Japan is not a major market for games' comment, I think we'll just leave that be. You made plenty of good comments in your post and didn't need to taint them with that comment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Joystiq article about Nintendo and Sony trying to spin latest numbers........

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/20/nintendo-and-sony-hop-on-the-npd-merry-go-round/

[spleen1015]

3 1/2 times more God of War sold than Wii's.

Yeah, that sucker's not in trouble.

(end sarcasm)

God of War is a much different beast than Diddy Kong Racing, wouldn't you say?

The fact remains, today, the PS3 is the worst of the next gen systems and it is worse than the PS2. All of that could change when they start releasing something worth playing.

[General Mike]

The GBA is much like the PS2. Tons of games (especially cheaper used games) and a price-entry point that even people who don't make a lot of money can afford. Nintendo and Sony are both going to be very happy if they can get another holiday season out of these consoles.

I still don't get it. For $50 more you can get a system that sells GBA games, and DS games. :confused:

[stevew]

I know that the main focus on this thread (and the previous one) is the "next-gen" debate among Xbox 360/PS3/Wii, but you know what I'm surprised about? The Game Boy Advance is still selling. It's got to be a price issue, right? How much is a Game Boy Advance SP these days? $79.99? I assume that many of those sales are to parents who are looking for something inexpensive for the kids. I don't know much about Nintendo systems, but I would assume that there's a pretty big library of games that can play on the GBA. That's got to be a nice selling point, too.

I guess I was just surprised to see that the GBA is still on the map. From my uninformed standpoint, I would have guessed that once the DS got its footing, the GBA would fade away pretty quickly. Obviously, the system still has legs. Good for Nintendo.

Sales of the GBA also amaze me, especially since the DS is like 50 bucks more, and also plays GBA games. The game library is hugemongous for the GBA.

[DanGarion]

I would assume the 360 numbers are off because of the announcement of the 360 Elite, so that may have held back a good amount of sales till it's release... Unless I don't know what I'm talking about...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

God of War is a much different beast than Diddy Kong Racing, wouldn't you say?

The fact remains, today, the PS3 is the worst of the next gen systems and it is worse than the PS2. All of that could change when they start releasing something worth playing.

I totally agree. My only point was that comparing game sales to console sales couldn't be more useless. A much more useful analysis would be that the 360 has outsold the PS3 by 6M units thus far.

I agree with your second comment except for the 'PS3 is the worst'. Change that to 'PS3 is the worst-selling' and I agree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I would assume the 360 numbers are off because of the announcement of the 360 Elite, so that may have held back a good amount of sales till it's release... Unless I don't know what I'm talking about...

Yes, but you could make similar excuses for every console.

-360 purchasers are waiting for the Elite console or Halo 3.
-Wii purchasers are waiting for actual supply or the next great Nintendo first-party game.
-PS3 owners are waiting for the larger HDD console or GT5, FFXIII, MGS4, etc.

The only thing that counts is what is sold right now. If you start making those kinds of assumptions, you really allow for a lot of wiggle room where you start adding in a lot of 'yea, but......' arguments that really can't be measured with any accuracy.

FWIW.....I think the Elite won't sell nearly as well as MS wants it to unless they drop it to the $399 price point. There will be some diehards that buy it, but overall demand won't be as much as they'd like.

[Icy]

Something i can't stop to wonder myself. Let's analyze the next gen sales, the winner for sure is the wii, why?

1- Cheap price compared with the other two
2- The innovative control system

1 can't be beat by sony or Microsoft and won't for a while if ever, but 2...can't it be copied with a few mods to avoid the copyright issues and to offer the control movement to their consoles? Sony has done it already with the syxasys, not exactly the same and not as good, but it can have it's use, but what about Microsoft? what are they waiting for?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Something i can't stop to wonder myself. Let's analyze the next gen sales, the winner for sure is the wii, why?

1- Cheap price compared with the other two
2- The innovative control system

1 can't be beat by sony or Microsoft and won't for a while if ever, but 2...can't it be copied with a few mods to avoid the copyright issues and to offer the control movement to their consoles? Sony has done it already with the syxasys, not exactly the same and not as good, but it can have it's use, but what about Microsoft? what are they waiting for?

FYI.....Sony already holds a patent for a motion-design system that was filed quite a while ago. MS is also working on a motion control system. Personally, neither of them interest me. If I wanted a system that has a few good motion control games, I'd have bought the Wii already.

It's not in the interest of gamers overall to have the Wii sell a lot of units. It would allow the companies to put out marginally-improved consoles from a technology standpoint with gimmicky gameplay. I don't want my PS4 to come out in 5-6 years with PS3 graphics and a light saber because it previously worked with the Wii.

[MizzouRah]

I wish the pc sports genre would come back!

[Icy]

I wish the pc sports genre would come back!

For sure, nothing beats playing in a PC for me, with all the available mod options etc.

[SackAttack]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6169379.html

GameSpot story on the numbers digs in a little deeper than just 'how many sold.' Adds a Nintendo quote in there, too (something to the effect of "More Wiis sold than PS3's and Xbox 360's combined").

[sabotai]

Reports on a couple of the articles state that it likely was around 4 million sold at the end of March.

What articles?

[sabotai]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6169379.html

GameSpot story on the numbers digs in a little deeper than just 'how many sold.' Adds a Nintendo quote in there, too (something to the effect of "More Wiis sold than PS3's and Xbox 360's combined").

"Sony said that was despite PS3 supply problems in the US in March"

Ok, if they haven't by now, Sony really has moved into a state of full-blown delusion.

[SackAttack]

It's not in the interest of gamers overall to have the Wii sell a lot of units. It would allow the companies to put out marginally-improved consoles from a technology standpoint with gimmicky gameplay. I don't want my PS4 to come out in 5-6 years with PS3 graphics and a light saber because it previously worked with the Wii.

But it is in the interests of gamers for a system designed with affordability in mind to fail in favor of higher-priced systems?

I, uh, think you might want to reconsider that. There's room in the market for competing approaches to the industry.

If Sony chooses to mimic what Nintendo is doing, doesn't that give you greater cause for concern vis à vis Sony's ability to attract customers on their own merits than whether or not Nintendo's business model is "good for gamers"?

Put another way - Nintendo has long said it isn't worth losing buckets of money on the initial hardware investment just to gain it back over 5-10 years in software. That has been their MO for 25 years, and the Wii doesn't change that. If the PS4 comes out with "PS3 graphics and a light saber," maybe that means that the PS3 caused enough of a financial impact to Sony that they're starting to agree.

[sabotai]

I want a fucking lightsaber!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If Sony chooses to mimic what Nintendo is doing, doesn't that give you greater cause for concern vis à vis Sony's ability to attract customers on their own merits than whether or not Nintendo's business model is "good for gamers"?

No. It just shows that Nintendo had a good idea. Microsoft has built a PC and console empire by using ideas that others have created. In the cases where people sued them for infringement, they just settled and still had plenty of profits left over. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Doing what makes the most money is just good business-sense.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some tech guys tore apart a 360 Elite unit........

http://www.llamma.com/xbox360/news/inside_the_xbox_360_elite.htm

Some bullet points:

-Appears to have the smaller 65nm chip, but they can't be for sure.
-Disc drive is still the old, noisier version.
-MS added glue to try to fix the 'Ring of Death' problems. Tech guys doubt it will help.
-Nice to have HDMI cable included.
-Happy with the overall value.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

"Sony said that was despite PS3 supply problems in the US in March"

Ok, if they haven't by now, Sony really has moved into a state of full-blown delusion.

As was mentioned in the February thread, the PS3's worst enemy is the fact that the PS3's execs refused to shut up. Anyone that actually thinks that the Sony execs actually believe what they are saying in that comment is just as delusional. They're spinning away until they can find a point where they can drop the price and put the PS3 in a position to succeed until the 'system seller' games hit the shelves for the PS3. With that said, their best course of action at this point is to shut their mouth and not try to spin anything.

Nintendo execs looked stupid as well with their spin-doctoring when they claimed they had the #1 'next-gen' console for March.

1) That a nice way of avoiding the fact that the PS2 outsold the Wii.
2) That 'next-gen' portal outside of a couple of first-party Nintendo games has basically been a haven of 'last-gen' ports for a few months now.

[sabotai]

At this point, you can't even say what Sony is doing is "spinning". They are flat-out lying.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At this point, you can't even say what Sony is doing is "spinning". They are flat-out lying.

Well, if we're going to call a spade a spade.......

-Microsoft continues to claim no more than a 2% failure rate on their consoles.
-Nintendo continues to claim that it's not withholding supply to increase demand.

I don't totally disagree with you that it's getting really stupid, but everyone is doing a bit more than 'spinning'.

[gstelmack]

Well, if we're going to call a spade a spade.......

-Microsoft continues to claim no more than a 2% failure rate on their consoles.

Proof? Other than "lots of people complaining"?

I may or may not be the exception that proves the rule, but I've had one from the initial launch run that is still going strong. Not claiming they don't have failures, I personally know 2 people that had issues, but you can't say Microsoft is lying on the 2% failure rate unless you have hard numbers that show it is higher than 2%. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen concrete numbers that show this to be a lie.

Also keep in mind that a fair number of the early problems were people that didn't understand the concepts of "heat" and "airflow". Not all, or even necessarily a majority, but you can't count people breaking their consoles as a failure rate.

[dawgfan]

It's not in the interest of gamers overall to have the Wii sell a lot of units. It would allow the companies to put out marginally-improved consoles from a technology standpoint with gimmicky gameplay. I don't want my PS4 to come out in 5-6 years with PS3 graphics and a light saber because it previously worked with the Wii.
So, let me see if I get this straight - if gamers are buying a lot of Wii's, it's a bad thing for gamers if Sony and/or MS to jump on the Nintendo console strategy?

What you're saying is that gamers don't know what they're doing by buying lots of Wii's - I'd say that's a pretty arrogant statement to make. What the Wii is proving is that the latest and greatest in graphics isn't necessarily the most important thing for gaming, but innovative gameplay is.

Even with the surprising success of the Wii, I don't see both Sony and MS going the Wii route next time around - there's still a market for the higher-tech gaming system. I think if anything, what's happening is we're seeing the console market evolve into greater specialization, with Sony and MS representing the high-tech end (and combined, the PS3 and 360 are selling quite well) and Nintendo filling a secondary, lower-cost, lower-tech fun niche. I'd bet that a significant number of Wii's sold are a 2nd console sold to a household that already has either a 360 or a PS3 (or both in a few cases).

[dawgfan]

Proof? Other than "lots of people complaining"?

I may or may not be the exception that proves the rule, but I've had one from the initial launch run that is still going strong. Not claiming they don't have failures, I personally know 2 people that had issues, but you can't say Microsoft is lying on the 2% failure rate unless you have hard numbers that show it is higher than 2%. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen concrete numbers that show this to be a lie.

Also keep in mind that a fair number of the early problems were people that didn't understand the concepts of "heat" and "airflow". Not all, or even necessarily a majority, but you can't count people breaking their consoles as a failure rate.
Just to add to that, I'm not aware of any of our test 360's having any kind of failure issues, and we're well into our 2nd year of having most of them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Proof? Other than "lots of people complaining"?

I may or may not be the exception that proves the rule, but I've had one from the initial launch run that is still going strong. Not claiming they don't have failures, I personally know 2 people that had issues, but you can't say Microsoft is lying on the 2% failure rate unless you have hard numbers that show it is higher than 2%. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen concrete numbers that show this to be a lie.

Also keep in mind that a fair number of the early problems were people that didn't understand the concepts of "heat" and "airflow". Not all, or even necessarily a majority, but you can't count people breaking their consoles as a failure rate.

Certainly, there's no 'absolute' proof as you say. However, Microsoft has increased the benefits of their warranty on existing 360's not once, but twice since the initial launch. I'm guessing that they didn't increase the warranty just out of the goodness of their heart.

In regards to problems caused by the consumer, I agree to some extent. However, you would expect that some consumers on every system are making mistakes regarding the placement of their console in a badly ventilated area. Yet we don't see the same returns because of airflow and heat problems on the Wii or the PS3. Both of them have extremely low failure rates. The Microsoft design team definitely made some mistakes in that regard. At some level, you have to assume stupidity of your consumer and produce a system that is reliable even in sub-optimal situations to a certain degree. That just makes good sense as a business looking for an optimal product.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So, let me see if I get this straight - if gamers are buying a lot of Wii's, it's a bad thing for gamers if Sony and/or MS to jump on the Nintendo console strategy?

What you're saying is that gamers don't know what they're doing by buying lots of Wii's - I'd say that's a pretty arrogant statement to make. What the Wii is proving is that the latest and greatest in graphics isn't necessarily the most important thing for gaming, but innovative gameplay is.

No. Let me restate it a different way. I HOPE that the companies do not see the success of the Wii as a licence to put out technology that's less than bleeding-edge in future generations. I see the Wii gameplay as a bit more of a gimmick than innovative gameplay. There was a golf game on the PS2 that had motion recognition just like TW07 has on the Wii. This isn't something new other than they're using a standardized controller for these gameplay elements rather than a new controller for each game.

Regarding your final point, if they keep the high-end gaming, I have no problem with the Wii selling a lot of units.

[Atocep]

No. Let me restate it a different way. I HOPE that the companies do not see the success of the Wii as a licence to put out technology that's less than bleeding-edge in future generations. I see the Wii gameplay as a bit more of a gimmick than innovative gameplay. There was a golf game on the PS2 that had motion recognition just like TW07 has on the Wii. This isn't something new other than they're using a standardized controller for these gameplay elements rather than a new controller for each game.



One game on a system with motion recognition = Gimmick

Successfully basing a console on it = innovative

There's a big difference that you fail to recognize there. The Wii goes beyond motion control, the number of ways the controler can be used is how its innovative. To completely brush motion recognition aside because the PS2 (and others) tried it as a gimmick and it didn't work is short-sighted.

[gstelmack]

Certainly, there's no 'absolute' proof as you say. However, Microsoft has increased the benefits of their warranty on existing 360's not once, but twice since the initial launch. I'm guessing that they didn't increase the warranty just out of the goodness of their heart.

So you are throwing out FUD now. You accused Microsoft of lying, but have no other proof than that they increased their warranties?

They may well have done that because of the negative press they were getting over the failures they were having, not necessarily because they were having so many failures. And lots of press does not necessarily mean lots of numbers, as a small group can get very vocal.

They may also have done it because of the RROD heating design flaw that was discovered. That doesn't mean lots of consoles are dying because of it, but they are replacing those that do and modifying future runs to avoid it. None of this means the number is over the 2% they quote. None of this is a contradiction or proof that they are lying about the 2% number.

2% of several million is still a couple of hundred thousand consoles. So the absolute number is still high, but the percentage can still be right on.

[dawgfan]

No. Let me restate it a different way. I HOPE that the companies do not see the success of the Wii as a licence to put out technology that's less than bleeding-edge in future generations. I see the Wii gameplay as a bit more of a gimmick than innovative gameplay.
Perhaps it's a gimmick, but enough people are finding the Wii refreshingly fun that they are buying them. It's certainly possible that the Wii will run out of steam and the innovation will seem played-out, but you can't argue with Nintendo's business model this time around and with the number of people that have voted with their pocketbooks.

Like I said though, I see the market as starting to evolve into 2 segments - I don't see the Wii as a direct competitor to the PS3 and 360, but more as a complementary piece given the price and the major differential in gameplay experience. I really doubt you have anything to worry about in terms of higher-end gaming machines next time around.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

One game on a system with motion recognition = Gimmick

Successfully basing a console on it = innovative

There's a big difference that you fail to recognize there. The Wii goes beyond motion control, the number of ways the controler can be used is how its innovative. To completely brush motion recognition aside because the PS2 (and others) tried it as a gimmick and it didn't work is short-sighted.

Not exactly what I said, but it brings up a good point. Is the Wii all that innovative at this point? Right now, it's mostly ports from the PS2 and Gamecube. Even the first party titles like Zelda, Excite Truck and Paper Mario were designed for the Gamecube and simply had motion control tacked onto the game.

At some point, the Wii will get games that were specifically designed for the Wii. Will the designers implement the game physics/controls well enough that the motion control fits well in the game? Obviously, we can't know at this point. It will be interesting to see some of the games this time next year and see if they make good use of the motion control or if they just continue to use it as more of a tacked-on feature.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Perhaps it's a gimmick, but enough people are finding the Wii refreshingly fun that they are buying them. It's certainly possible that the Wii will run out of steam and the innovation will seem played-out, but you can't argue with Nintendo's business model this time around and with the number of people that have voted with their pocketbooks.

There's no question about that. If I had to look at financials and choose a gaming division to lead, it would be Nintendo in a heartbeat. From a business perspective, I think the model of selling systems at a loss and hoping to recoup it later that Sony and MS are using is horribly flawed and a big risk.

[Travis]

The buzz for the Wii is huge right now, but the test will be down the road, once the "newness" of it has worn off. Is this a style a majority will want to continue gaming in, or will people start switching back to a less active/more traditional style. I've tried it, enjoyed it for an evening, but definitely not my cup of tea. For those that are converts, I wonder how many will want to plug away at those 80+ hour single player style games, and if they decide to turn off the motion option and go with the controller at that point, how does that affect their decision in the future?

Great on Nintendo for doing their thing and starting off like wildfire, I'm curious just how far the industry will end up moving with them in the end though. I still see this as the Wii vs the PS2 with the PS3 vs the 360 more than anything, and in looking at those numbers, the race is much closer.

[dawgfan]

The buzz for the Wii is huge right now, but the test will be down the road, once the "newness" of it has worn off. Is this a style a majority will want to continue gaming in, or will people start switching back to a less active/more traditional style. I've tried it, enjoyed it for an evening, but definitely not my cup of tea. For those that are converts, I wonder how many will want to plug away at those 80+ hour single player style games, and if they decide to turn off the motion option and go with the controller at that point, how does that affect their decision in the future?
I think the Wii is proving that there is still a market in console games for more simplistic gaming. I've found most of my gaming time on the Wii is short-span gaming like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Rayman & Wario Ware. In fact, the only long-style single-player game I have is Zelda, and I just haven't felt sucked-in enough to spend much time with it. But the games I feel like buying for the Wii are the ones that are more closely related to the DS or GBA - games like Cooking Mama and Super Paper Mario. If I want something different, I'll play a game on a 360.

Great on Nintendo for doing their thing and starting off like wildfire, I'm curious just how far the industry will end up moving with them in the end though. I still see this as the Wii vs the PS2 with the PS3 vs the 360 more than anything, and in looking at those numbers, the race is much closer.
I don't agree - this is looking at things too much from a horsepower perspective and not at a gameplay style perspective. The PS2 has very few games that are similar to the kinds of games that are thriving on the Wii. This is really more about the Wii winning over people who haven't really been gamers for a long time (or ever) as well as finding a place as a cheaper, change of pace console for gamers that have or will have a 360 or PS3.

[dawgfan]

At some point, the Wii will get games that were specifically designed for the Wii. Will the designers implement the game physics/controls well enough that the motion control fits well in the game? Obviously, we can't know at this point. It will be interesting to see some of the games this time next year and see if they make good use of the motion control or if they just continue to use it as more of a tacked-on feature.
You mean like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wario Ware and Rayman?

[Daimyo]

I look at the numbers and see a consistent trend: latest/greatest technology and graphics are not the most important things to most gamers. Make a system that is fun and innovative and/or has a lot of good games and you will do well even if you don't have the best hardware. I don't think this new... its pretty much held true for every generation. Kudos for Nintendo for taking it to the extreme on both the DS and Wii.

[Travis]

I don't agree - this is looking at things too much from a horsepower perspective and not at a gameplay style perspective. The PS2 has very few games that are similar to the kinds of games that are thriving on the Wii. This is really more about the Wii winning over people who haven't really been gamers for a long time (or ever) as well as finding a place as a cheaper, change of pace console for gamers that have or will have a 360 or PS3.

Hasn't that always been the case though? The only reason I make that comparison is because price and hardware wise, they're closer together than the Wii is to the 360 and the PS3. If you take out the interactive controller, really it's not all that different from the gamecube which was the direct competition to the PS2.

I know with the group of people I hang out with, we've always considered the nintendo system to be the "party" system while the playstation was moreso for solo gaming. And now that the "next gen" consoles have been split into different areas of focus, I can see different splits happening. The fact that the PS2 and the Wii are selling at a similar clip shows while the 360 and PS3 lag behind reinforce that people are only willing to pay so much and that things other than specs will attract them. Saying that the Wii is winning over new gamers may be misleading because that same group may be just now getting into the PS2 because it's even cheaper/bigger library of games/games more to their style.

I do find it interesting that an existing system continues to outsell all the next gen consoles, as well as the Wii being the leader of this "generation". No matter if the buzz dies down, those two factors have to have some sort of affect on how the next generation of consoles will be produced. Either in pushing them back due to lack of overall demand, or with the companies trying to go even that much further outside the current box. The next batch of consoles should arrive after the HDTV switchover, so the idea of the all in one may be much more attractive at that point, but if nothing else, there should be a lot of interesting plans by these companies to implement at that point no matter how this war turns out.

[bronconick]

Frankly, those numbers tell me that people have little desire to pay more then the $250 price point of the Wii, maybe up to $300 for any console.

Microsoft and Sony should have just sat on their "next gen" consoles until they could sell the damn things with a couple games and "extras" (memory card/2nd controller) for less then a monthly house payment. Heck, who knows, maybe they could have released with more then a dozen games that don't suck that way.

For most people it's a hobby, and we can't justify to ourselves paying that much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Frankly, those numbers tell me that people have little desire to pay more then the $250 price point of the Wii, maybe up to $300 for any console. ... For most people it's a hobby, and we can't justify to ourselves paying that much.

Ding motherfucking DING !

[dawgfan]

Frankly, those numbers tell me that people have little desire to pay more then the $250 price point of the Wii, maybe up to $300 for any console.
Except that the 2 high-end consoles are outselling the Wii. What I'm seeing is a market that still favors the cutting-edge game console and towards that end is split between the 360 and PS3, and developing market that either hasn't been buying consoles for a long time or is existing hard-core gamers that want a significantly different alternative, cheaper console to supplement their high-end console buying the Wii.

[dawgfan]

Hasn't that always been the case though? The only reason I make that comparison is because price and hardware wise, they're closer together than the Wii is to the 360 and the PS3. If you take out the interactive controller, really it's not all that different from the gamecube which was the direct competition to the PS2.
The interactive controller is the huge difference though - you can't minimize the importance of that innovation. It's what is driving so many non-hardcore gamers into buying a Wii, and it's a fresh alternative for the hardcore gamers.

[Travis]

The interactive controller is the huge difference though - you can't minimize the importance of that innovation. It's what is driving so many non-hardcore gamers into buying a Wii, and it's a fresh alternative for the hardcore gamers.

I never said minimizing it, but fact is, the ps2 is still outselling all the next gen consoles. Where would the Wii be without that controller? Who knows, but the point I'm trying to make is that while the Wii is getting new games and also latching on as a secondary system in addition to the 360 and ps3 in some households, the ps2 is it's direct competition still in that price bracket while not having the advantage of being bought in addition to a ps3 (and I'd be surprised if many 360 owners have purchased a ps2 after picking up their 360, but that's pure speculation).

So is it the Wii's innovation or the price that's playing a bigger role? People have stated in the previous thread that they're buying their first PS2's now because of the price break and game lineup, others go for the Wii because of the new playing style and the price. That speaks of competition to me, even if unintended on either companies part, while the 360 and PS3 slap fight for the big cash deposits per system. I don't know if they weren't included or if the sales have dropped off past that chart (assuming the latter), but where are the xbox and gamecube sales at?

While each system plays differently, the Wii plays differently than any system out there, so in giving it a comparison for competition, the PS2 just seems to fill that role more completely than the other next gen sets.

[dawgfan]

The Wii and PS2 may be competing on price point, but the vast difference in gameplay controllers and the style of games in each one's library suggests to me that they really aren't a hugely overlapping market.

[Travis]

The Wii and PS2 may be competing on price point, but the vast difference in gameplay controllers and the style of games in each one's library suggests to me that they really aren't a hugely overlapping market.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you're using that as a point for comparison, none of the systems would compare to the Wii. Hardware and price wise, the PS2 is the closest as is the market they are attacking (my opinion there). The difference being that the Wii has different game style play (PS3 sixaxis being the closest out there otherwise), but the PS2 has a much larger game library to walk into for a new consumer. As for game style differences, again, that exists between the Wii and the PS2 just as much as it does between the Wii and the 360 and PS3.

Yes, greatly innovative, but that's an entirely different discussion which I touched on earlier, but when looking at sales, it just jumps out at me that the PS2 is selling more/similar level to the Wii (seeing as how they're likely limiting their releases) while it's big brother tries (ineffectively thus far) to catch the 360.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You mean like Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wario Ware and Rayman?

The two Wii games are basically tech demos which work for party-like play. I'll grant you the other two, but you know as well as I do that most of the games currently available for the Wii were designed for either the Gamecube or PS2 and had motion support added just so they could release it on the Wii and get more money with very little additional development costs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Except that the 2 high-end consoles are outselling the Wii. What I'm seeing is a market that still favors the cutting-edge game console and towards that end is split between the 360 and PS3, and developing market that either hasn't been buying consoles for a long time or is existing hard-core gamers that want a significantly different alternative, cheaper console to supplement their high-end console buying the Wii.

I'm not totally sure about that. If you take away the head start from the 360 and total up the numbers after the same period of time, the Wii has sold the same number as the other two consoles combined.

[Daimyo]

Except that the 2 high-end consoles are outselling the Wii. What I'm seeing is a market that still favors the cutting-edge game console and towards that end is split between the 360 and PS3, and developing market that either hasn't been buying consoles for a long time or is existing hard-core gamers that want a significantly different alternative, cheaper console to supplement their high-end console buying the Wii.

Well, if you go back to the poster's original point about people preferring consoles that cost $250 or less you get this:

sales of consoles that cost <$250 = 539,000 (doesn't include handhelds)
sales of consoles that cost >$250 = 329,000

I think the point has merit.

[Deattribution]

Well, if you go back to the poster's original point about people preferring consoles that cost $250 or less you get this:

sales of consoles that cost <$250 = 539,000 (doesn't include handhelds)
sales of consoles that cost >$250 = 229,000

I think the point has merit.

I think ya mean 329,000. :)

And, in terms of revenue - which is all that companies really care about especially in the early stages, those 329,000 are worth more than the 539,000. The bonus for Sony being they have a considerable hand in both numbers, and the handheld market too.

Nintendo makes up the difference in the cost of the system, and the amount of acessories that are sold with that many systems (which with 4 wiimotes and 4 chuks puts them on par with the other systems in terms of income for Nintendo).

Nobody is doing that bad, the PS3 is 69k shy of the Xbox this month yet they have a 200 dollar difference in price point (give or take), and the Xbox has a significantly better library right now.

[Daimyo]

I think ya mean 329,000. :)

And, in terms of revenue - which is all that companies really care about especially in the early stages, those 329,000 are worth more than the 539,000. The bonus for Sony being they have a considerable hand in both numbers, and the handheld market too.

Sony loses about $250 for each PS3 sold.
Microsoft breaks even for each XBox360 sold.

Nintendo makes about $40 profit for each Wii sold.
I couldn't find hard numbers on the PS2, but its safe to say it is sold at a nice profit as well.

[dawgfan]

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you're using that as a point for comparison, none of the systems would compare to the Wii.
And that's my point - the Wii, IMO, is carving out (or greatly expanding) a niche in the console game market - a different attitude of gaming style (building on the Nintendo legacy with new, innovative controllers) combined with a more affordable price point.

Yes, greatly innovative, but that's an entirely different discussion which I touched on earlier, but when looking at sales, it just jumps out at me that the PS2 is selling more/similar level to the Wii (seeing as how they're likely limiting their releases) while it's big brother tries (ineffectively thus far) to catch the 360.
The PS2 phenomenon is, I believe, unprecedented in the game industry. It was such a phenomenally successful console that it provided a platform for a huge number of great games. That, combined with the huge existing install base and the decision by Sony to continue pushing sales on it by releasing system-sellers like God of War 2 for it is what is pushing the incredible continuing sales - well above and beyond what you'd normally find for an outdated, bargain price console.

It's my impression and my opinion, but I believe that the pools of people buying PS2's and those buying Wii's right now don't have a large overlap - these systems are appealing to different segments of the market.

[sterlingice]

I don't know about the DS Lite- those shortages just seem like Nintendo got caught with their pants down, not expecting the demand they had for the unit.

But, the Wii is starting to sound like more and more are going to be available starting this month. There were a couple of threads on CAG today where supply was finally exceeding demand at sites as lines of only 20ish people were there for 80+ units.

Oooh, ooh! I'll go out on a limb and predict that Pokemon: Diamond and Pokemon: Pearl will top the April list with at least 1.5M units sold (combined) even with only 10 days of sales.

SI

[SackAttack]

17 Wii's at my Best Buy today, another 30 due later in the week.

My guess is that was at least partially coordinated for the Pokemon launch.

[spleen1015]

I got to Best Buy about 30 minutes after they opened today and saw 4 Wii's in the checkout line as I walked in the door.

No Super Paper Mario! :(

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I can actually personally confirm that there were Wii's available today well after opening. I walked into Best Buy at 1:00 PM yesterday (three hours after opening) and found 5 Wii's sitting on the shelf. The BB reps told me that they had 18 to start the day and only had 3 people in line. I went ahead and bought a Wii. My wife wanted one as she's not terribly fond of my PS3 sports games. :) I picked up a nunchuck, Wii Play and Zelda as well. I'm not a big Mario fan at all, but I do like RPG's, so Zelda gives me a pseudo-RPG to play with for now.

Funny thing was that there were 3 other people that were coming in the same time as me that turned down Wii's. 2 of them specifically stated that they were there for GH II and the other guy said 'I just want a TV'.

I was the babysitter yesterday as my wife was working, so hopefully I'll be able to give the Wii a whirl today.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think of the Wii as the motion-control console. I think of it as the more-affordable-and-appealing-to-a-broader-range-of-people console.

If Microsoft and Sony learn from that, then I think that gamers win.

If, however, the lesson that Microsoft and Sony take from the Wii is "Let's put a lightsaber on our next console and charge $1,500 for the whole thing," then I think that they will have missed the point.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't think of the Wii as the motion-control console. I think of it as the more-affordable-and-appealing-to-a-broader-range-of-people console.

I tend to think of it as the families 'retro' console as I play more VC stuff on it than I do motion games ...

[Marc Vaughan]

If, however, the lesson that Microsoft and Sony take from the Wii is "Let's put a lightsaber on our next console and charge $1,500 for the whole thing," then I think that they will have missed the point.
Any console containing a lightsaber will automatically be considered seriously for purchase by me .... although my wife has the power of veto ;)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think of the Wii as the motion-control console. I think of it as the more-affordable-and-appealing-to-a-broader-range-of-people console.

If Microsoft and Sony learn from that, then I think that gamers win.

If, however, the lesson that Microsoft and Sony take from the Wii is "Let's put a lightsaber on our next console and charge $1,500 for the whole thing," then I think that they will have missed the point.

Sometime next year, both the 360 and PS3 are going to be at affordable price points and the hi-def movies are likely to be more important with hi-def stand alone players dropping to a sub-$300 price point this holiday season. The market will change somewhat at that point. There's just a whole lot of waiting right now.

After the release problems that the PS3 had concerning price point, I think it's pretty likely you won't see them release a console with this big of a loss per console in the future. There's a lot to learn from in this generation. Price points, quality control and importance (or lack thereof) of exclusives are just a few things that have influenced early adopters. The growth phase of this generation over the next 1.5-2 years will likely have new obstacles. Price points, 'system sellers' and the speed of hi-def movie adoption appear to be a few of the things to watch.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Any console containing a lightsaber will automatically be considered seriously for purchase by me .... although my wife has the power of veto ;)

Man, I should patent this 'light saber console' idea that I half-heartedly threw out there. It seems to be catching on. :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FYI.....multiple stores have Wii's on hand in-store this morning as well. Evidently another big shipment came in overnight. It would appear the Nintendo-created shortages are about to end. It should make for some interesting sales numbers over the coming days as the market saturation begins for the Wii. We'll actually be able to see the real sales numbers rather than guessing how many would sell if they were actually in stock.

[sabotai]

If, however, the lesson that Microsoft and Sony take from the Wii is "Let's put a lightsaber on our next console and charge $1,500 for the whole thing," then I think that they will have missed the point.

I would gladly pay $1500 for a fucking lightsaber. Do not underestimate the power of the dark side!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Exclusives continue to fall to the wayside. 3 more games previously listed as exclusives are no longer exclusives........

Eternal Sonata
Kane & Lynch
Crossfire

All 3 were originally Xbox 360 exclusives. 'Eternal Sonata' is an action RPG that was hoped to increase the 360 base in Japan much like Blue Dragon. 'Kane & Lynch' and 'Crossfire' are both games created by the same developer that designs the 'Hitman' series of games. All of the games are now listed for a fall release on the PS3, 360, and PC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Latest sales numbers of next-gen DVD's for the first quarter of 2007.........

Blu-ray total: 832,530
HD DVD total: 359,300

Still relatively small numbers when compared to DVD sales, but the trend over the first quarter continued to widen the sales margin between the two formats. Blu-ray is now outselling HD-DVD at a 2.3:1 margin.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I took a look at some numbers for the Wii game sales this past week since I just got a Wii and was curious what some of the popular games were on the console. I noticed a familiar trend. This is the sales breakdown for the top 10 Wii games by developer (total sales).......

Nintendo: 5,403,046
3rd party: 1,185,152

Nintendo titles are outselling 3rd party products at a 5:1 ratio. That's a huge ratio. With an installed U.S. base of 2.4 million, the numbers indicate that each Wii owner owns 2 or more Nintendo games, yet only 1 in 2 Wii owners has a third party game. Also, with Paper Mario and Mario Party being released, there's a pretty high likelihood that ratio will increase dramatically (I would expect Mario to hit 1.5-2M and Mario Party to get at least 1M). Here's a breakdown by games as of the week of April 14th.

Super Paper Mario: 149,876
Wii Sports: 2,416,598
Wii Play: 726,190
Zelda: 1,580,298
Wario: 530,084
Tiger Woods: 153,953
Rayman: 447,309
Sonic: 159,187
Cooking Mama: 69,764
Madden: 354,939

Not a single one of the 3rd party game is outselling a Nintendo game on a week by week basis. Rayman is close to Wario in overall sales, but Wario sold 26K last week when compared to Rayman's 11K, so that gap will likely widen.

Also, someone needs to tell EA that a bad port of a game with new motion controls is still a bad port. EA reportedly pushed a lot of resources toward the Wii (they said they'd be making up to 20 games). The sales figures for their early games are pretty disappointing considering they are the franchise games for EA. Also, the SSX game for the Wii has already fallen off the charts.

What can Nintendo do to reverse this trend? It happened on the Gamecube and now it's happening on the Wii. Certainly, they have a larger installed console base than the Gamecube, but the increased base hasn't resulted in more third party sales for other publishers. They've done a great job of getting console owners to buy their games, but it's really killing the chances of getting third-party titles to succeed on their system.

Also, is EA being hurt by the market force that seems to indicate that a majority of people that own a Wii often own a 360 or a PS3? This may be dramatically hurting EA sales because people are opting to buy the EA games on their PS3 and 360 because it's a better version of the game (both graphics and controls). It seems to make sense as the EA numbers for Madden and Tiger indicate that the people who solely own a Wii are the only ones buying a Wii version of those games.

[Neon_Chaos]

EA Games -> good.
EA Sports -> bad.

[MJ4H]

I think a lot of 3rd party developers were caught with their pants down on the Wii. They didn't realize the userbase was going to be as big as it will be. Some of the quick ports that have been thrown out there are a sign of this. In my opinion, in a year or so, the 3rd party development should pick up significantly once the developers who are late to the Wii party have had time to develop better games. The Wii is so different from previous systems that time is needed to truly develop games for the system and not just at the system.

Nintendo, of course, has had a head start in this area and has many first party titles that can sell by name alone. These two things combined with the 3rd party games being almost emergency ports in some cases I think leads to the discrepancy seen. I think it should get better, but Nintendo fans love Nintendo games. I know I bought the console for Mario, Metroid, Zelda, and Smash Bros. Third parties are a bonus, but I think they will be there eventually given some time to catch up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think a lot of 3rd party developers were caught with their pants down on the Wii. They didn't realize the userbase was going to be as big as it will be. Some of the quick ports that have been thrown out there are a sign of this. In my opinion, in a year or so, the 3rd party development should pick up significantly once the developers who are late to the Wii party have had time to develop better games. The Wii is so different from previous systems that time is needed to truly develop games for the system and not just at the system.

Nintendo, of course, has had a head start in this area and has many first party titles that can sell by name alone. These two things combined with the 3rd party games being almost emergency ports in some cases I think leads to the discrepancy seen. I think it should get better, but Nintendo fans love Nintendo games. I know I bought the console for Mario, Metroid, Zelda, and Smash Bros. Third parties are a bonus, but I think they will be there eventually given some time to catch up.

I guess I wonder about the thought that the developers somehow need a year to catch up. We're not dealing with rocket science in regards to Wii development. The architecture is at its root a Gamecube with an enhanced graphics engine and a motion control. It's not like the 360 or PS3 which have totally different systems from their predecessor.

Also, there were developers who created games like Red Steel that were designed for a long period of time with the Wii in mind. It was TERRIBLE. Some would also argue that there are good 3rd party games right now that aren't selling because of the Nintendo dominance on the console. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and Smash Bros. are all Gamecube ports that just happened to never be released on the Gamecube.

Saying that 3rd party titles will eventually succeed on a Nintendo console is like saying the PS3 will eventually sell a lot of consoles. Will it happen eventually? Possibly. But neither are guaranteed by any means. Nintendo's history seems to indicate that history is just repeating itself. It should be noted that status quo wouldn't be a bad thing for Nintendo. The only problem with status quo is that the lack of 3rd party support may keep Nintendo from gaining a really good foothold in the general gamer market.

[Deattribution]

Nintendo's smartest decision was in their price point, as unique as the new controller scheme is - if the system was $100-150 dollars more they would not be flying off the shelves as quick as they are. I think they'll be okay regardless.

[Fidatelo]

I guess I wonder about the thought that the developers somehow need a year to catch up. We're not dealing with rocket science in regards to Wii development. The architecture is at its root a Gamecube with an enhanced graphics engine and a motion control. It's not like the 360 or PS3 which have totally different systems from their predecessor.

Do you understand what goes into developing a video game? Especially a new one and not a port? Just because the architecture is similar doesn't mean a dev stuido can crank out a game, from conception to release, in 6 months. My guess is that 3rd party studios that were hedging their bets on the Wii (which was a prudent decision imo) have only been green-lighting projects since january/february, at best. From that point the games need to be designed, developed, tested, and produced.

Like MJ4H said, if strong 3rd party support is coming, we won't really know for a year or so.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Do you understand what goes into developing a video game? Especially a new one and not a port? Just because the architecture is similar doesn't mean a dev stuido can crank out a game, from conception to release, in 6 months. My guess is that 3rd party studios that were hedging their bets on the Wii (which was a prudent decision imo) have only been green-lighting projects since january/february, at best. From that point the games need to be designed, developed, tested, and produced.

Like MJ4H said, if strong 3rd party support is coming, we won't really know for a year or so.

Understood. But how many 'new' games are really in the works? From what I've seen, they're mostly just rehashes of old games (similar to SSX Blur). Not only that, but they have to find a way to take advantage of the control system in a meaningful way.

[MJ4H]

A lot of new games are in the works. And learning to take advantage of the control system is precisely what takes awhile to do well. You will find out by the holidays or a little after if 3rd party support is truly going to be behind or ahead of where it was on gamecube.

A couple of new games I'm looking hard at are Dewey's Adventure and Opoona.

[spleen1015]

There are hundreds of games in various stages of development that we have no idea that they even exist.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A couple of new games I'm looking hard at are Dewey's Adventure and Opoona.

Who's making those games? What type of game are they?

[WVUFAN]

So I got the chance to play the Wii this weekend. Damn, that's a fun system.

I played multiplayer baseball(I suck), golf (which I'm surprisingly good at dispite never actually playing golf in real life), and Cooking Mama.

Cooking Mama is ... interesting, but clearly it hates America. Starting recipies for France is spagetti with (ugh) squid ink, Japan is another "exotic dish" as is China, whereas America's starting dish is .... popcorn. :)

Then you graduate to hotdogs, and then hambugers (although it's one with nutmeg, so take that for what you will).

It's just a very ... interesting game.

[MJ4H]

Who's making those games? What type of game are they?

Dewy's Adventure is Konami (Action/Platformer)
http://www.thewiire.com/profile/161/Dewys_Adventure

Opoona is by Koei (Action/RPG)
http://www.thewiire.com/profile/193/Opoona

[Fidatelo]

A lot of new games are in the works. And learning to take advantage of the control system is precisely what takes awhile to do well. You will find out by the holidays or a little after if 3rd party support is truly going to be behind or ahead of where it was on gamecube.

This is the correct answer.

[Tyrith]

What can Nintendo do to reverse this trend? It happened on the Gamecube and now it's happening on the Wii. Certainly, they have a larger installed console base than the Gamecube, but the increased base hasn't resulted in more third party sales for other publishers. They've done a great job of getting console owners to buy their games, but it's really killing the chances of getting third-party titles to succeed on their system.



I'd like to note that this more or less happened on the N64 too. This has been Nintendo's business model for years -- which is why it's so important for them to keep the systems in and of themselves profitable, because they're not going to rake massive royalty payments.

[kingnebwsu]

I hope I'm wrong, but I see the Wii getting only slightly more third-party support than the Cube and N64. Also, I don't see versus online play happening in the next few years with Nintendo.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

[Tyrith]

Overall, what I take out of this -

- Wii isn't likely to have massive 3rd party support ever, as I mentioned above. Nintendo just doesn't do things that way, where they are dependent on other publishers to supply software to make their system sell. They're system strategy isn't based off game volume anyway; they make their money as soon as you buy the plastic box, so anything after that is gravy. They just need to pump enough software to get people to buy the system and the system that comes after it.

- PS3 and 360 are killing each other and there's nothing really to differentiate the systems. The massive loss of exclusivity between the systems -- heck, rumors that FF13 isn't going to be exclusive!? -- means that it could devolve into a war over petty features + price. Price war is definitely possible. Competition scenarios like this are just never pretty; typically both companies turn out losers. And neither company is going to fold their hand easily, so I'd expect them to both bleed cash into this for a long time, trying to win World War I.

- The fact that the cheaper consoles sell more units than the expensive ones is to be expected, and is quite intuitive economically. World wealth distribution is a pyramid; there are just more raw numbers as you go down the purchasing power scale. Seems like a pretty basic supply/demand thing. MS and Sony should theoretically have much higher margins on their software to make up the gap.

[dawgfan]

I hope I'm wrong, but I see the Wii getting only slightly more third-party support than the Cube and N64. Also, I don't see versus online play happening in the next few years with Nintendo.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.
I dunno - I think game publishers were wary of the Wii given the 3rd place status of Nintendo in the last generation of hardware and the unproven nature of the motion sensitive controller scheme, but now that they're seeing the tremendous success of the Wii they're going to come after that market with a vengeance.

[SackAttack]

Overall, what I take out of this -

- Wii isn't likely to have massive 3rd party support ever, as I mentioned above. Nintendo just doesn't do things that way, where they are dependent on other publishers to supply software to make their system sell. They're system strategy isn't based off game volume anyway; they make their money as soon as you buy the plastic box, so anything after that is gravy. They just need to pump enough software to get people to buy the system and the system that comes after it.

Which, as an analysis, is hugely ironic given Nintendo's history. Granted, the market has changed and they aren't the 800 lb. gorilla of the industry anymore, able to throw their weight around such that their third party lineup is unparalleled, the way it was in the NES and SNES days.

Not knocking you, by the way - just pointing out why that's funny to me.

Seems like a pretty basic supply/demand thing. MS and Sony should theoretically have much higher margins on their software to make up the gap.

How do you do that, though? As expensive as games are to develop for their platforms, you either cut way back on development costs, or you raise the price of games.

Now all of a sudden, you have a razor that's 2-3x as expensive as the competition, and blades that have gone from a 20% markup over the competition to maybe a 40-50% markup. Now, you might start to make back more of your investment on installed base, but you're engaging in self-cannibalism, because how are you going to attract additional new purchases?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Overall, what I take out of this -

- Wii isn't likely to have massive 3rd party support ever, as I mentioned above. Nintendo just doesn't do things that way, where they are dependent on other publishers to supply software to make their system sell. They're system strategy isn't based off game volume anyway; they make their money as soon as you buy the plastic box, so anything after that is gravy. They just need to pump enough software to get people to buy the system and the system that comes after it.

- PS3 and 360 are killing each other and there's nothing really to differentiate the systems. The massive loss of exclusivity between the systems -- heck, rumors that FF13 isn't going to be exclusive!? -- means that it could devolve into a war over petty features + price. Price war is definitely possible. Competition scenarios like this are just never pretty; typically both companies turn out losers. And neither company is going to fold their hand easily, so I'd expect them to both bleed cash into this for a long time, trying to win World War I.

- The fact that the cheaper consoles sell more units than the expensive ones is to be expected, and is quite intuitive economically. World wealth distribution is a pyramid; there are just more raw numbers as you go down the purchasing power scale. Seems like a pretty basic supply/demand thing. MS and Sony should theoretically have much higher margins on their software to make up the gap.

All excellent points.

Just as a FYI......the basis for the FF XIII rumor was basically revealed this week. FF XIII is going to be a PS3 exclusive. However, there are going to be a lot of games based on the FF XIII game that will be released on other consoles. Several of those titles will probably end up on other consoles in addition to the PS3. It wouldn't be shocking to see a couple end up as portable exclusives on the DS or PSP either. Square/Enix seems to be setting the table for that kind of distribution with their recent remake releases on the DS.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

How do you do that, though? As expensive as games are to develop for their platforms, you either cut way back on development costs, or you raise the price of games.

Now all of a sudden, you have a razor that's 2-3x as expensive as the competition, and blades that have gone from a 20% markup over the competition to maybe a 40-50% markup. Now, you might start to make back more of your investment on installed base, but you're engaging in self-cannibalism, because how are you going to attract additional new purchases?

The console developers (and even the software developers to some extent) are already showing their hand as far as how they expect to make up the difference. They're likely to start selling more games as downloadable, which gives them a higher profit margin.

Also, downloadable add-ons are another way to get a large profit margin on a game where you don't make a whole lot on the initial purchase. I personally go out of my way to avoid buying add-ons to avoid encouraging that kind of sales model, but I think it's going to happen eventually no matter what.

[Eaglesfan27]

All excellent points.

Just as a FYI......the basis for the FF XIII rumor was basically revealed this week. FF XIII is going to be a PS3 exclusive. However, there are going to be a lot of games based on the FF XIII game that will be released on other consoles. Several of those titles will probably end up on other consoles in addition to the PS3. It wouldn't be shocking to see a couple end up as portable exclusives on the DS or PSP either. Square/Enix seems to be setting the table for that kind of distribution with their recent remake releases on the DS.


Link on PS3 Exclusivity of FFXIII? Is it a biased source? Everything I've read is that exclusivity of FFXIII is still up in the air.

[Butter]

Link on PS3 Exclusivity of FFXIII? Is it a biased source?

Well, Mizzou B-ball Fan said it, so that's pretty biased right there!

[spleen1015]

Also, downloadable add-ons are another way to get a large profit margin on a game where you don't make a whole lot on the initial purchase. I personally go out of my way to avoid buying add-ons to avoid encouraging that kind of sales model, but I think it's going to happen eventually no matter what.

By add-ons are you talking about expansions?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

By add-ons are you talking about expansions?

Yes, stuff like the Oblivion expansion on the 360 provided a better profit margin with no boxes/discs needed.

Stuff like Guitar Hero song packs and 'horse armor' was also what I was talking about.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I pulled some comments from a developer e-mail on the CAGcast podcast. Here's some of the points he made regarding the Wii.........

-The memory constraint of 64 MB RAM is a huge hinderance if you're creating a Wii-only game. The only benefit of creating that Wii-only game is that you don't have an executive breathing down your neck complaining how much better the PS3/360 versions look and play. Even with the large number of Wii's, most developers are still not creating Wii-specific games.

-If the game is one that was also released on the 360/PS3, the conversion/downgrade to the Wii in addition to the RAM restrictions make it a huge burden from a programming standpoint.

-PS3/360 allow for relatively easy game porting between the system. Wii causes some major problems when creating a version of a PS3/360 game.

-If a game is created for the Wii, 360 and PS3, it's pretty likely that the only reason there's a Wii version is because an executive thought the company needed a Wii version of the game and it's likely that it's not going to be a well-done conversion.

-If he was offered the job of taking a game already released on the PS3/360 and putting a version out on the Wii, he'd quit instantly. "I get off on creating innovative content, not cramming a bad conversion of a game onto underpowered hardware."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Link on PS3 Exclusivity of FFXIII? Is it a biased source? Everything I've read is that exclusivity of FFXIII is still up in the air.

Motomo Toriyama's latest comments are that their entire project will be known as 'Fabula Nova Crystallis: Final Fantasy XIII'. He stated that it is a collection of projects that they expect to last 10 years (i.e. we'll have many versions of FF XIII) and that the project is not limited to just the three previously announced titles. Also, he has stated that the games contained within the life of this project "are not simply exclusive to the PS3 and mobile gaming".

Most of the 360 fans jumped on this quote as a certainty that the initial FF XIII game would not be an exclusive. It appears now that the initial game is likely to be a sole or timed exclusive on the PS3 to avoid any conflict with Sony and their long partnership, while the other games will be multi-console with some of those versions possibly being exclusive to any of the 3 consoles. Also, there may be FF XIII games that are portable exclusives as well.

[Tyrith]

How do you do that, though? As expensive as games are to develop for their platforms, you either cut way back on development costs, or you raise the price of games.

Now all of a sudden, you have a razor that's 2-3x as expensive as the competition, and blades that have gone from a 20% markup over the competition to maybe a 40-50% markup. Now, you might start to make back more of your investment on installed base, but you're engaging in self-cannibalism, because how are you going to attract additional new purchases?

Realistically, besides the downloadable stuff being talked about here, you don't. MS and Sony are engaged in a market share war...and I'm not even sure there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, because of the expense concerns you noted. The two companies are going to beat each other to a pulp before they ever manage to make any money off this business, because they're both too stubborn to give it up. In this generation, however, the gamer is really starting to win. The 360 and PS3 are getting so much overlap now that you don't lose out all that terribly much by owning one or the other, and the insane competition is going to drive down prices and drive innovation.

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder if an expensive market share war is good for the consumers in the short term, but bad for us in the long term.

Is there a chance that both MS and Sony might both decide to leave the market and/or decide to invest a lot less money in the next generation of systems/games/etc.?

Of course, if the real long term change that comes out of this is that compaines focus more on fun/affordable rather than horsepower, then maybe consumers win in the long and the short term.

[albionmoonlight]

-The memory constraint of 64 MB RAM is a huge hinderance if you're creating a Wii-only game.

-If he was offered the job of taking a game already released on the PS3/360 and putting a version out on the Wii, he'd quit instantly. "I get off on creating innovative content, not cramming a bad conversion of a game onto underpowered hardware."

So this guy says that there are problems making Wii only games. And that there are problems making ports of other games for the Wii.

But other than that, Ms. Linclon, how did you enjoy the play?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I wonder if an expensive market share war is good for the consumers in the short term, but bad for us in the long term.

Is there a chance that both MS and Sony might both decide to leave the market and/or decide to invest a lot less money in the next generation of systems/games/etc.?

Of course, if the real long term change that comes out of this is that compaines focus more on fun/affordable rather than horsepower, then maybe consumers win in the long and the short term.

I think that with the early losses and more losses likely in a price war in the coming months, the more likely scenario is that they will prolong this generation, which allows them to have a longer profit timeframe on the end of the life cycle. The success of the PS2 gives them good reason to think that sticking with the consoles a bit longer may be a good idea. Also, you won't see another machine with the early loss margin like the PS3 had.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So this guy says that there are problems making Wii only games. And that there are problems making ports of other games for the Wii.

But other than that, Ms. Linclon, how did you enjoy the play?

Funny part was that he made the comments anonymously, so my guess is that he's currently stuck on a Wii project that he's not happy with and likely didn't want his boss to know he was bitching.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think this guy forgot to take his meds. He expects Wii shortages until 2009???? Nintendo's likely to have impulse demand sour if they restrict supply that long.

http://videostoremag.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=10568

“Q1 is looking like the beginning of an up-cycle year,” said Billy Pidgeon, video game analyst, IDC. “There’s good software movement, but hardware is stalled a bit by short Wii supply and stagnant demand for 360 and PS3.”

“I believe the Wii will continue strong growth although supply continues to be a problem,” Pidgeon said. “I’d like to see Wii hardware shipping in larger quantities or mass market consumers may cool on it. Having said that, I don’t believe supply will meet demand for the Wii until 2009. Xbox 360 and PS3 need system-selling games ASAP. Halo 3 will help, as will Lair and Heavenly Sword, but that leaves a hole in Q2 which will be filled by Wii, DS and PSP hardware and software. We’ll also see more PC and PS2 software picking up the slack.”

[stevew]

I think this guy forgot to take his meds. He expects Wii shortages until 2009???? Nintendo's likely to have impulse demand sour if they restrict supply that long.



Yeah, at some point people who wanted to get one, will just move on. I wanted a PS2 really bad when they first came out, but after waiting 3-4 months and not seeing one, I just moved onto other things. And at that point when they were available, I could no longer justify buying one and haven't ever bought one.

[MJ4H]

I pulled some comments from a developer e-mail on the CAGcast podcast. Here's some of the points he made regarding the Wii.........

-The memory constraint of 64 MB RAM is a huge hinderance if you're creating a Wii-only game. The only benefit of creating that Wii-only game is that you don't have an executive breathing down your neck complaining how much better the PS3/360 versions look and play. Even with the large number of Wii's, most developers are still not creating Wii-specific games.

-If the game is one that was also released on the 360/PS3, the conversion/downgrade to the Wii in addition to the RAM restrictions make it a huge burden from a programming standpoint.

-PS3/360 allow for relatively easy game porting between the system. Wii causes some major problems when creating a version of a PS3/360 game.

-If a game is created for the Wii, 360 and PS3, it's pretty likely that the only reason there's a Wii version is because an executive thought the company needed a Wii version of the game and it's likely that it's not going to be a well-done conversion.

-If he was offered the job of taking a game already released on the PS3/360 and putting a version out on the Wii, he'd quit instantly. "I get off on creating innovative content, not cramming a bad conversion of a game onto underpowered hardware."

There may be truth in some of these statements but they are horribly exaggerated and mostly irrelevant.

1) The Wii is underpowered compared to the other consoles. We get it. Power is not the focus. Making Wii games is not harder, it is just different.

2) I'm personally glad it is not easy to simply port over a 360 or PS3 game to Wii. If I wanted to play those games, I'd have gotten a 360 or PS3. I got a Wii because it is entirely different from the other two consoles. If I want to play the other type, I will just play my PS2.

In short, easy ports are BAD for the Wii so the fact that people don't want to do them is a good thing, not a bad thing. I can't imagine anything more detrimental to the console than a weakened port of an existing game with tacked on motion controls. The Wii is not about that, or it can't be about that if it wants to be successfull. It has to be about games that are unique from the other systems. The motion controls can't feel tacked on or the entire concept fails.

I don't think all Wii ports are going to be worse anyway. I consistently hear that Madden 07 is the most fun on Wii, though I can't stand Madden and have never tried it myself. People that harp on the fact that the Wii is weaker from a hardware power perspective are entirely missing the point in my opinion. Yes it can be a real problem in development, but hopefully the better game creators will not take the easy way out and try to make pretty, flashy games, and will go for what the Wii is all about.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There may be truth in some of these statements but they are horribly exaggerated and mostly irrelevant.

1) The Wii is underpowered compared to the other consoles. We get it. Power is not the focus. Making Wii games is not harder, it is just different.

2) I'm personally glad it is not easy to simply port over a 360 or PS3 game to Wii. If I wanted to play those games, I'd have gotten a 360 or PS3. I got a Wii because it is entirely different from the other two consoles. If I want to play the other type, I will just play my PS2.

In short, easy ports are BAD for the Wii so the fact that people don't want to do them is a good thing, not a bad thing. I can't imagine anything more detrimental to the console than a weakened port of an existing game with tacked on motion controls. The Wii is not about that, or it can't be about that if it wants to be successfull. It has to be about games that are unique from the other systems. The motion controls can't feel tacked on or the entire concept fails.

I don't think all Wii ports are going to be worse anyway. I consistently hear that Madden 07 is the most fun on Wii, though I can't stand Madden and have never tried it myself. People that harp on the fact that the Wii is weaker from a hardware power perspective are entirely missing the point in my opinion. Yes it can be a real problem in development, but hopefully the better game creators will not take the easy way out and try to make pretty, flashy games, and will go for what the Wii is all about.

Oh, it's definitely relevant. I agree with both your points. The Wii is underpowered and no one denies that. Also, you don't want bad ports flooding the system. The early sales figures would indicate that these ports aren't doing well which is probably a good thing to keep the number of the ports lower.

With that said, it also points to the glaring problem with the Wii. If these execs don't have the option to make a quick (and cheap) port to the Wii, they likely aren't going to put out a game for the Wii at all because they don't want the costs of new development. The lack of quality third party games and the crazy success of the first party games only further this thought, leading companies to just not bother creating games for the Wii. While Nintendo makes a decent profit by putting out consoles and making first-party titles that sell a lot of units, they aren't going to be able to make a PS2-like splash with any of their consoles until they start finding better ways for third party developers to make a buck on their system.

[twothree]

Also, there were developers who created games like Red Steel that were designed for a long period of time with the Wii in mind. It was TERRIBLE. Some would also argue that there are good 3rd party games right now that aren't selling because of the Nintendo dominance on the console. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and Smash Bros. are all Gamecube ports that just happened to never be released on the Gamecube.

Actually, Zelda: Twilight Princess was released on the Gamecube, also.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually, Zelda: Twilight Princess was released on the Gamecube, also.

True, though it was released first on the Wii to make sure people bought it for that system rather than the Gamecube. The Gamecube release was kind of a tip of the cap for those gamers that still played games on the Gamecube.

[Butter]

So, seriously, I can't believe the March thread is just picking up where the last one left off.

[Fidatelo]

Oh, it's definitely relevant. I agree with both your points. The Wii is underpowered and no one denies that. Also, you don't want bad ports flooding the system. The early sales figures would indicate that these ports aren't doing well which is probably a good thing to keep the number of the ports lower.

With that said, it also points to the glaring problem with the Wii. If these execs don't have the option to make a quick (and cheap) port to the Wii, they likely aren't going to put out a game for the Wii at all because they don't want the costs of new development. The lack of quality third party games and the crazy success of the first party games only further this thought, leading companies to just not bother creating games for the Wii. While Nintendo makes a decent profit by putting out consoles and making first-party titles that sell a lot of units, they aren't going to be able to make a PS2-like splash with any of their consoles until they start finding better ways for third party developers to make a buck on their system.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Any speculation on 3rd party support for the Wii is just that, speculation. Like MJ4H has said, we won't know anything for a long time, and won't have the big picture for even longer.

That said, yes, 3rd party support is a concern on the Wii, just as it was on past Nintendo systems. The thing is, at this point everyone knows this going in, so why does it matter? So what if Nintendo isn't making as much off royalties? They make a killing off the first party stuff, and they have little competition so each game sells huge.

Here's the bottom line:

- Nintendo is profitable under the current business model, so they (and their shareholders) are happy.
- People know how Nintendo operates, know there is a chance that they will be relying on mostly first party software, and are still buying the system like hotcakes. So the people are happy.

Where is the problem here?

[spleen1015]

Other than the 360, the Nintendo systems are the only ones I have made sure to get on launch day. Their 1st party games are too good to pass up. I will likely get the new Nintendo on lauch day for the rest of my life.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's the bottom line:

- Nintendo is profitable under the current business model, so they (and their shareholders) are happy.
- People know how Nintendo operates, know there is a chance that they will be relying on mostly first party software, and are still buying the system like hotcakes. So the people are happy.

Where is the problem here?

Agree with everything you said there. The problem is that I can't imagine that the Nintendo execs sat down around a table and thought that would be their optimal situation. I have no doubt that they're very frustrated with the third-party situation because they could be making a lot more money than they currently are.

[Deattribution]

- People know how Nintendo operates, know there is a chance that they will be relying on mostly first party software, and are still buying the system like hotcakes. So the people are happy.


This isn't the truth, most people buying these systems don't even know what first party and third party releases even means. Not to mention with another new console you tend to give a company a new slate - the only thing stopping them from having solid third party support is the product they release or the way they handle business.

It may be an entirely different story in a few months, but to just say it's Nintendo's status quo is garbage.

[Deattribution]

dola

Also with the new system and control scheme, Nintendo is tapping into a different audience - and that is their target to do so. That makes the above argument even more further from the truth since a good portion of these people ideally never even owned a Nintendo system in ages if ever.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Also with the new system and control scheme, Nintendo is tapping into a different audience - and that is their target to do so. That makes the above argument even more further from the truth since a good portion of these people ideally never even owned a Nintendo system in ages if ever.

I'm one of those people you're talking about. I have a PS3 and, just recently, a Wii. After playing the Wii a couple of times now, I'm pretty sure that dawgfan's previous point that the PS3/360 and the Wii are not competitors is a valid point. I like playing the Wii and I think it's going to get a ton of use at our monthly poker parties when we have over 20 people over to our home. I hooked it up to my home theater and Wii Bowling is a lot of fun when viewed on a 100" TV.

By the same token, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to buy any games for the Wii that have involved single player games. I bought Zelda just to try it out, but I'm pretty sure that I'll mostly be getting games that can be used as party games, like Wii Sports, Wii Play and Mario Party. I just can't get the single player experience out of a Wii that I would get from PS3 games.

Also, I knew that the Wii didn't have great 3rd party support, but I guess I didn't REALLY know how bad it was until I purchased a Wii and went to look at the available games. I'm not a huge fan of the Nintendo franchises, but Mario and Zelda games looked appealing to me when compared with the 3rd party games. The selection is awful. As I said, as long as good party/multiplayer games keep coming out from Nintendo, I'll be happy with my purchase because that's why I purchased it. But I definitely hope that some original third party games like that come out as well.

[Eaglesfan27]

Motomo Toriyama's latest comments are that their entire project will be known as 'Fabula Nova Crystallis: Final Fantasy XIII'. He stated that it is a collection of projects that they expect to last 10 years (i.e. we'll have many versions of FF XIII) and that the project is not limited to just the three previously announced titles. Also, he has stated that the games contained within the life of this project "are not simply exclusive to the PS3 and mobile gaming".

Most of the 360 fans jumped on this quote as a certainty that the initial FF XIII game would not be an exclusive. It appears now that the initial game is likely to be a sole or timed exclusive on the PS3 to avoid any conflict with Sony and their long partnership, while the other games will be multi-console with some of those versions possibly being exclusive to any of the 3 consoles. Also, there may be FF XIII games that are portable exclusives as well.


I've read those quotes and most people don't interpert this as a guarantee or even likelihood that the core game will be PS3 exclusive. There is still a chance that the Core FF XIII game will not be PS3 exclusive.

[Fidatelo]

This isn't the truth, most people buying these systems don't even know what first party and third party releases even means. Not to mention with another new console you tend to give a company a new slate - the only thing stopping them from having solid third party support is the product they release or the way they handle business.

It may be an entirely different story in a few months, but to just say it's Nintendo's status quo is garbage.

I'll give you the new audience thing you mentioned in your dola, but I disagree with giving each console a new slate. The success of the previous console plays a huge role in the ability to get 3rd parties on the next one. Also, it has been this way with Nintendo for a decade now, people know what they get when they are buying Nintendo.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I've read those quotes and most people don't interpert this as a guarantee or even likelihood that the core game will be PS3 exclusive. There is still a chance that the Core FF XIII game will not be PS3 exclusive.

Assuming we throw out that quote as having no relevance whatsoever for the sake of argument, I'd still be floored if the core FF XIII was release anywhere other than the PS3. As you and I discussed before, anything else would be an extreme problem for Sony. They're well aware of that and there's absolutely no way that would happen (yes, you can bookmark that comment for later :) ). There's a big difference between letting a game like Devil May Cry go multi-platform and letting a FF game go multi-platform.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll give you the new audience thing you mentioned in your dola, but I disagree with giving each console a new slate. The success of the previous console plays a huge role in the ability to get 3rd parties on the next one. Also, it has been this way with Nintendo for a decade now, people know what they get when they are buying Nintendo.

So Nintendo's claims of third party support for this console pre-release should have been dismissed as impossible because of the previous consoles? I'm guessing Nintendo didn't trumpet games like Red Steel because they were setting them up for failure.

[bronconick]

I've read those quotes and most people don't interpert this as a guarantee or even likelihood that the core game will be PS3 exclusive. There is still a chance that the Core FF XIII game will not be PS3 exclusive.



Heck, if they really plan on dragging it through 10 years of games and multiple platforms with offshoots of the core game, it makes much more sense to release the core game on as many consoles as possible.

[Eaglesfan27]

All excellent points.

Just as a FYI......the basis for the FF XIII rumor was basically revealed this week. FF XIII is going to be a PS3 exclusive. However, there are going to be a lot of games based on the FF XIII game that will be released on other consoles. .

Assuming we throw out that quote as having no relevance whatsoever for the sake of argument, I'd still be floored if the core FF XIII was release anywhere other than the PS3. As you and I discussed before, anything else would be an extreme problem for Sony. They're well aware of that and there's absolutely no way that would happen (yes, you can bookmark that comment for later :) ). There's a big difference between letting a game like Devil May Cry go multi-platform and letting a FF game go multi-platform.

You speak with certainty in the first quote. However, you are assuming quite a bit. No where has it been announced that FFXIII is PS3 exclusive. In fact, Square has specifically mentioned the new game engine is multi platform friendly. The quotes that have been made recently re: FFXIII are seen by most (myself included) as being another indication that FFXIII is not going to be PS3 exclusive. As you've agreed, a very bad piece of news for Sony if/when it happens.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't know if the FFXIII is going to be multi platform or exclusive to the PS3. I objected to your stating like it was fact that it would be PS3 exclusive, when the fact is that no one knows. I saw it as misleading at best.

[dawgfan]

With that said, it also points to the glaring problem with the Wii. If these execs don't have the option to make a quick (and cheap) port to the Wii, they likely aren't going to put out a game for the Wii at all because they don't want the costs of new development. The lack of quality third party games and the crazy success of the first party games only further this thought, leading companies to just not bother creating games for the Wii. While Nintendo makes a decent profit by putting out consoles and making first-party titles that sell a lot of units, they aren't going to be able to make a PS2-like splash with any of their consoles until they start finding better ways for third party developers to make a buck on their system.
I really don't think all game companies are going to be stuck on the idea of only making ports of PS3/360 titles for the Wii. As well, new IP development for the Wii doesn't necessarily have to be an expensive proposition like most PS3/360 titles. In fact, the hardware limitations of the Wii mean that there really isn't a lot of point to spending a ton of time and money on art, animation and sound, and the gameplay design for Wii games should focus more on utilizing the unique controller scheme and less about really complex gaming interactions that tax the memory budget and the performance capability of the CPU.

The surprising success of the Wii so far, to me, almost guarantees we'll start seeing a lot more serious attention from 3rd party developers for that platform - it will just take some time as the publishers ramp up their efforts. But by next year, I would expect to see a lot more serious 3rd party efforts for the Wii.

[sterlingice]

I think this guy forgot to take his meds. He expects Wii shortages until 2009???? Nintendo's likely to have impulse demand sour if they restrict supply that long.

http://videostoremag.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=10568

“Q1 is looking like the beginning of an up-cycle year,” said Billy Pidgeon, video game analyst, IDC. “There’s good software movement, but hardware is stalled a bit by short Wii supply and stagnant demand for 360 and PS3.”

“I believe the Wii will continue strong growth although supply continues to be a problem,” Pidgeon said. “I’d like to see Wii hardware shipping in larger quantities or mass market consumers may cool on it. Having said that, I don’t believe supply will meet demand for the Wii until 2009. Xbox 360 and PS3 need system-selling games ASAP. Halo 3 will help, as will Lair and Heavenly Sword, but that leaves a hole in Q2 which will be filled by Wii, DS and PSP hardware and software. We’ll also see more PC and PS2 software picking up the slack.”

As I point out about once every quarter, life as a video game analyst must be great. You failed as a business person so you sit back and make "educated" guesses that won't be verified until long after you're into another job.

1) Does anything think the PSP is filling any slack anywhere right now? How about PS2 games not named God of War 2?

2) History has shown that Nintendo rarely has product shortages- it's just not that often. They were pretty much floored with how successful both products have been and were caught unprepared. I'm guessing that will change shortly, again, as history has shown (minor GBA SP shortages are the only thing I can think of in Nintendo's long history).

3) C'mon, Mizzou. I know you called the guy crazy but then you proceeded to give his claim credence and said "Nintendo's likely to have impulse demand sour if they restrict supply that long" like it was a credible claim.

SI

[SackAttack]

2) History has shown that Nintendo rarely has product shortages- it's just not that often. They were pretty much floored with how successful both products have been and were caught unprepared. I'm guessing that will change shortly, again, as history has shown (minor GBA SP shortages are the only thing I can think of in Nintendo's long history).

Incorrect. Back in the days when Nintendo WAS the 800 lb gorilla on the block, they routinely had shortages. There were stores in Japan that wouldn't open the morning the SNES launched because they were only getting, like, four units, and knew they couldn't fill expected demand.

They didn't have shortage issues with the GameCube, obviously, nor do I recall any for the N64...but prior to that, yes. Oh, yes.

[stevew]

Incorrect. Back in the days when Nintendo WAS the 800 lb gorilla on the block, they routinely had shortages. There were stores in Japan that wouldn't open the morning the SNES launched because they were only getting, like, four units, and knew they couldn't fill expected demand.

They didn't have shortage issues with the GameCube, obviously, nor do I recall any for the N64...but prior to that, yes. Oh, yes.

I seem to remember the N64 being pretty hard to get aas well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As I point out about once every quarter, life as a video game analyst must be great. You failed as a business person so you sit back and make "educated" guesses that won't be verified until long after you're into another job.

1) Does anything think the PSP is filling any slack anywhere right now? How about PS2 games not named God of War 2?

2) History has shown that Nintendo rarely has product shortages- it's just not that often. They were pretty much floored with how successful both products have been and were caught unprepared. I'm guessing that will change shortly, again, as history has shown (minor GBA SP shortages are the only thing I can think of in Nintendo's long history).

3) C'mon, Mizzou. I know you called the guy crazy but then you proceeded to give his claim credence and said "Nintendo's likely to have impulse demand sour if they restrict supply that long" like it was a credible claim.

SI

1. The PS2 sold more units than any other console last month. I'd say that's filling in pretty nicely no matter how you slice it. Also, the PSP has received a pretty substantial sales boost after the price drop.

2. Let's forget about history for a second. Nintendo put out 24% less consoles than they did the previous month. There is absolutely no way they managed to produce less consoles than they did last month by that wide of a margin several months into the life cycle. If anything, their production capabilities should stay the same or be ramping up given that they've openly admitted that they have no issues with component supplies for the system. They were holding back consoles.

3. That was meant to be sarcasm. If Nintendo is still having 'shortages' by 2009, they're morons for still holding back supply thinking the demand (that is based on artificial supply restraints) will sustain for that long.

[Daimyo]

Incorrect. Back in the days when Nintendo WAS the 800 lb gorilla on the block, they routinely had shortages. There were stores in Japan that wouldn't open the morning the SNES launched because they were only getting, like, four units, and knew they couldn't fill expected demand.

They didn't have shortage issues with the GameCube, obviously, nor do I recall any for the N64...but prior to that, yes. Oh, yes.
I bought my SNES on launch day and remember just walking into the store in the afternoon and picking one up. I remember specific Nintendo games (Super Mario Bros 3 being the prime example) being extremely scarce for up to months after release, but I never had a trouble with the systems.

[Daimyo]

I don't think Nintendo is holding back anything. IMO they honestly did not expect demand to be nearly this high. Nintendo has cultivated a business model over the last 10 years that does not require them to be the #1 console... they fill a niche that allows them to be very profitable even as the #3 console manufacturer. I bet they expected to be #3 this generation too and produced accordingly. For them selling this many consoles is just gravy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think Nintendo is holding back anything. IMO they honestly did not expect demand to be nearly this high. Nintendo has cultivated a business model over the last 10 years that does not require them to be the #1 console... they fill a niche that allows them to be very profitable even as the #3 console manufacturer. I bet they expected to be #3 this generation too and produced accordingly. For them selling this many consoles is just gravy.

That still doesn't explain how their production capabilities mysteriously dropped 24% last month. If there was a labor strike or a factory fire, that would have been in the news as it would have explained the production drop off. There's no doubt in my mind that they're hoarding consoles until now to avoid selling too many in the previous fiscal year, just as the Gamestop head suggested. It makes far too much sense.

[spleen1015]

hxxp://www.gamespot.com/news/6169725.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

"I screwed up with the PS3. I'll leave you guys to handle it. Thanks!"

[B & B]

Bought and paid for a Sega Genesis system last night, 12 games + shipping was only fifty bucks. Hopefully its shipped out today, soon to be rocking out some NHL 94 with Neely and Bourque. WOOT!

[dixieflatline]

Figured this might be a bit interesting to add. Last week's console sales for Japan.
http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/90489/japansales_qjpreviewth.jpg?595384
The Week column is sales for this latest week. The Weekly column is over the history of the console and Total is pretty obvious. The DS conbines DS and DS lite sales. The moral of the story seems to be: handhelds good, nintendo on fire.

[Eaglesfan27]

Is the "week column" in thousands or were there really only 24 PS3's solid in the entire country last week?

[sabotai]

Is the "week column" in thousands or were there really only 24 PS3's solid in the entire country last week?

I think that's how many weeks the console has been available.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think that's how many weeks the console has been available.


That makes much more sense and shows of the "next gen" consoles that the Wii is kicking some butt.

[twothree]

Is the "week column" in thousands or were there really only 24 PS3's solid in the entire country last week?

Edit: Already answered, so from using the above numbers, here is the rounded average total number of units sold per week over the life of the unit.

#/week last week

DS 131,553 126,157
Wii 106,858 75,952
PS2 58,572 12,128
GBA 52,449 1,316
PSP 43,931 29,405
PS3 36,895 10,925
GC 13,720 186
X360 5,229 2,666

Of course, products that are early in their life span usually should have an increasing or higher average of units sold per week over the life of the unit if the unit is doing good. Products late in their life span should usually have a lower total average of units sold per week over it's life or the average should be decreasing, as an example, only 186 Gamecubes being sold in the latest week would tend to bring the Gamecube average of 13,720 down a bit each week.

[sabotai]

Edit: Already answered, so I will now fill this with something else in a few minutes. grrrr

pwn3d

[twothree]

pwn3d

Which I promoted into a queen... :p

[MJ4H]

Square-Enix Confirms the Worst
http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html

<table border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%">Square Enix Confirms FFXIII Is Not Exclusive To PS3
by Michal Birecki on 17/04/2007 Views: 135039 <table align="right"> <tbody><tr><td><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8776224395323551"; google_ad_width = 200; google_ad_height = 200; google_ad_format = "200x200_as"; google_ad_type = "text"; //2007-04-23: 200x200 right side in news google_ad_channel = "6182775380"; google_color_border = "D2D2D2"; google_color_bg = "D2D2D2"; google_color_link = "0077cc"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "000000"; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>
</td> </tr></tbody></table>

In news that is sure to rock the gaming world it has been confirmed that Final Fantasy XIII, the blockbuster RPG highly anticipated by millions of fans of the series, will not be an exclusive game for the PlayStation 3 console. The Final Fantasy XIII project as of right now consists of two games for the PlayStation 3 as well as a mobile game. Motomu Toriyama of Square Enix has come out and made the confirmation that other consoles will be receiving Final Fantasy XIII on top of the PlayStation 3.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="adsplit" width="100%">
(http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html#part2)
<center><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8776224395323551"; google_ad_width = 336; google_ad_height = 280; google_ad_format = "336x280_as"; google_ad_type = "text"; //2007-02-02: 336 x 280 (news) google_ad_channel = "8095751924"; google_color_border = "d2d2d2"; google_color_bg = "d2d2d2"; google_color_link = "1d63b3"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "000000"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script></center></td> </tr> <tr></tr><tr> <td width="100%">This is pretty big news and could lead to speculation as to which Final Fantasy XIII games are going where. The obvious rumors are going to be that FFXIII is heading to the Xbox 360 as well as the PlayStation 3. This quote though could also mean that the series could be heading to the Nintendo DS handheld and or the Nintendo WII as well since Square Enix has been very impressed and pleased with the progression and installed user base of the Wii, with the DS already receiving the Final Fantasy treatment a few times. Let the rumors begin. Either way though the fact that Final Fantasy XIII will not be a PS3-exclusive has to make any Sony fan cringe in their gaming chairs.


</td></tr></tbody></table>

[spleen1015]

I wonder if I will ever have a reason to buy a PS3.

[sabotai]

It's still a bit ambiguous.

"In news that is sure to rock the gaming world it has been confirmed that Final Fantasy XIII, the blockbuster RPG highly anticipated by millions of fans of the series, will not be an exclusive game for the PlayStation 3 console."

Does this mean the actual FFXIII game, or are they talking about the "FFXIII project", which will include multiple games, some on different consoles? It seems like the former, but then the next sentance starts talking about the "FFXIII project".

Until I see the quote "Final Fantasy XIII will also be released on the XBox 360", I'll hold off on believing that it's true.

[14ers]

While Microsoft would love to do better in Japan, Japan is not a major market for games.
Why would you say this?


"In 2006, Japan's video game market grew 37% to a record $5.3 billion, according to Enterbrain, which tracks the video game business in Tokyo. Hardware sales grew by 59.1% to $2.2 billion.."

[Coder]

I realize this is not the PC-games thread, but to a certain extent I think this belongs here. Despite the PS3s arrival, and the consoles going strong on the games-market, PC-games increased their sales by 48% as compared to last year's Q1.

Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13654)

Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2007Apr/bga20070424004517.htm)

It's interesting for a few reasons, but the reason worth mentioning here is that previous sales-dips have been blamed on consoles and piracy, neither of which seems to be decreasing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's still a bit ambiguous.

"In news that is sure to rock the gaming world it has been confirmed that Final Fantasy XIII, the blockbuster RPG highly anticipated by millions of fans of the series, will not be an exclusive game for the PlayStation 3 console."

Does this mean the actual FFXIII game, or are they talking about the "FFXIII project", which will include multiple games, some on different consoles? It seems like the former, but then the next sentance starts talking about the "FFXIII project".

Until I see the quote "Final Fantasy XIII will also be released on the XBox 360", I'll hold off on believing that it's true.



Yeah, I'm not sure that's any more information than what I posted earlier that the 'project' would have multiple games on other systems. That looks like a story that was written off the original quotes without fully understanding what the comments meant to say.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OK, now this is a Wii game with a career mode that makes perfect sense and would be a must-buy for the Wii for me. Hopefully the controls will feel as natural as the ones in Wii Sports-Bowling.......

http://wii.qj.net/Brunswick-Pro-Bowling/cid/3680

[oykib]

I realize this is not the PC-games thread, but to a certain extent I think this belongs here. Despite the PS3s arrival, and the consoles going strong on the games-market, PC-games increased their sales by 48% as compared to last year's Q1.

Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13654)

Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2007Apr/bga20070424004517.htm)

It's interesting for a few reasons, but the reason worth mentioning here is that previous sales-dips have been blamed on consoles and piracy, neither of which seems to be decreasing.

This probably has somrthing to do with the dropping PC prices as compared to rising console prices. Plus, you can do a hell of a lot more with a PC. The installed PC base has got to dwarf al the next-gen systems.

[spleen1015]

I realize this is not the PC-games thread, but to a certain extent I think this belongs here. Despite the PS3s arrival, and the consoles going strong on the games-market, PC-games increased their sales by 48% as compared to last year's Q1.

Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13654)

Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2007Apr/bga20070424004517.htm)

It's interesting for a few reasons, but the reason worth mentioning here is that previous sales-dips have been blamed on consoles and piracy, neither of which seems to be decreasing.

This was mentioned some where else. This increase is due in large part if not entirely based on WoW's expansion coming out in Q1.

[Icy]

Ken Kutaragi Steps Down
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/783/783728p1.html

I guess he is not so happy with the console wars results so far.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ken Kutaragi Steps Down
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/783/783728p1.html

I guess he is not so happy with the console wars results so far.

He 'moved' to a different division in Sony a few months ago. He hasn't been associated with the PS3 divison since then. I'm sure he's not happy with it, but he's not involved in it right now.

[stevew]

OK, now this is a Wii game with a career mode that makes perfect sense and would be a must-buy for the Wii for me. Hopefully the controls will feel as natural as the ones in Wii Sports-Bowling.......

http://wii.qj.net/Brunswick-Pro-Bowling/cid/3680

Yeah, I'm secretly hoping they implement a full scale version of Wii Bowling at some point, with the ability to have online leagues. But yea, unless that game sucks balls(which sadly is strongly possible), it's a must buy for me as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good post from Bill Harris. Always good info in his posts, whether you agree with it all or not.

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/console-post-of-week_27.html

[MJ4H]

Iwata revealed recently that Nintendo has 45 first party Wii games currently in development. Also something like 79 DS first party games are in development.

Sounds cool. We don't need no stinkin 3rd party games. Well, we do, but this is terrific to hear. Says we should start hearing more about a lot of them this summer.

[Big Fo]

It's going to be hard for that bowling game to be $50 better than the bowling in Wii Sports IMO. It's the best of the five and the one I play 90% of the time when playing Wii Sports.

What I want is a tennis game.

[Eaglesfan27]

This has to hurt some. No wonder that the mastermind behind the PS3 left:


Report: Sony facing massive PS3 losses

Analysts estimate game division could post quarterly loss of $1 billion, according to Bloomberg report.

By Brendan Sinclair (http://www.gamespot.com/users/Polybren/), GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/)

Posted May 15, 2007 11:58 am PT

Sony is expected to report its quarterly earnings tomorrow, and a group of analysts are bracing for bad numbers, according to a Bloomberg.com report (http://tinyurl.com/ywcnk4). The financial news site obtained predictions of Sony's quarterly results from 11 industry analysts, and the group's median estimates for the electronics giant were a company-wide loss of 75.8 billion yen ($630 million), with revenues up 9.5 percent to 2.02 trillion yen ($16.8 billion).
As for the culprit behind those projected losses, they appear to be due to the game division and then some. Bloomberg said responses from five of the analysts pegged Sony's game group as posting a quarterly loss of 121 billion yen ($1 billion), completely wiping out expected profits from the rest of the company's divisions. The gaming business more than offset gains from Bravia HDTVs and the box office performance of Spider-Man 3, according to the report.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This has to hurt some. No wonder that the mastermind behind the PS3 left:


Report: Sony facing massive PS3 losses

I'm not sure this is much of a surprise. They budgeted for a major shortfall in the billions for this year on the PS3.

I think a much bigger story is that the PS3 looks like it only sold about 100,000 units this month. Sony's getting to the point where they're going to have to bite the pricing bullet in the next few months if things don't improve. MGS got moved back to 2008, which also puts more pressure on Sony to find other ways to sell consoles this year.

[stevew]

Sony will also be in trouble once consumers realize that their Bravia TV's are not dramatically better, and in many cases are quite a bit inferior, to similarly priced models from their competitors.

[Big Fo]

What kind of price cut though? I'm not sure that $500 would sell that many more consoles than are currently being sold. At $600 are they still being sold at a loss?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What kind of price cut though? I'm not sure that $500 would sell that many more consoles than are currently being sold. At $600 are they still being sold at a loss?

$499 would obviously be a good start. You won't see them drop it any lower than that initially. That won't be enough for some, but it will certainly boost sales for a period of time. If they're going to do it, they need to do it soon or just wait until late October/early November and just boost the holiday numbers. A lot of it will depend on how quickly they can get the cost of the console down to a reasonable level.

[TroyF]

I'm not sure this is much of a surprise. They budgeted for a major shortfall in the billions for this year on the PS3.

I think a much bigger story is that the PS3 looks like it only sold about 100,000 units this month. Sony's getting to the point where they're going to have to bite the pricing bullet in the next few months if things don't improve. MGS got moved back to 2008, which also puts more pressure on Sony to find other ways to sell consoles this year.

Stop spinning things. It's a MAJOR surprise to Sony. Yes, they expected to lose a lot of money initially. But they fully expected the sales numbers to be over double or triple what they are now. That's doubled and tripled the losses they were expecting. This is a bloodbath for Sony right now.

Sony's bigtime saving grace is the fact that Microsoft made a moronic decision by releasing a high priced console when they should have kept their price point down and the fact that the titles for the Wii have dried up.

Even with this, the Wii and 360 are outselling them at a ridiculous clip and the 360 has some unbelievable titles coming throughout the rest of this year.

The launch was a disaster. The aftermath isn't any better. They need to make moves adn make them quickly. Forgetting the price point for a moment, what Sony really has to do is get some A+ titles out and do it quickly. Hell, I'm not even talking exclusives at this point. Just get a couple of solid titles that are released for the 360 and them at the same time that look better on the PS3. If they don't do that, it isn't going to matter what the price point is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Stop spinning things. It's a MAJOR surprise to Sony. Yes, they expected to lose a lot of money initially. But they fully expected the sales numbers to be over double or triple what they are now. That's doubled and tripled the losses they were expecting. This is a bloodbath for Sony right now.

Uh, I stated that the sales numbers for the upcoming month were the big story. I appreciate your passion, but I stated exactly the same thing you stated.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Bill Harris' take on the upcoming sales numbers release:

Console Post of the Week: Moving Targets, Tagamet, and a Substantial Revision

NPD numbers come out later this week. What will be interesting are not the PS3 numbers (which will be around 100k, anything over 120k would be very, very surprising) or the Wii numbers (which will be big, in the 350k range), but the 360 numbers.

Microsoft has a problem.

Here's what's going wrong for Microsoft: their most important competitor, Sony, is floundering. Sony has followed the most ill-conceived pricing and product strategy in console history with five months of complete ineptitude.

In the last two months, according to NPD, the 360 has sold 427k units, while the PS3 has sold 257k. That's with the PS3 being $200 more expensive (excluding the Elite) and with only a small number of quality games.

With the magnitude of Sony's errors, and a 33% difference in price, the 360 should be pounding the PS3 right now. I don't consider the difference in sales for the last two months to be nearly enough from Microsoft's perspective. So while Sony executives must be throwing up bloody chunks of stomach lining right now, I bet Microsoft's executives are swilling Tagamet as fast as they can.

Here's Microsoft's other problem--take a look at this quote from Peter Moore (VP of Microsoft's Entertainment Division) in response to a question about failure rates for the 360:
“I can’t comment on failure rates, because it’s just not something – it’s a moving target. What this consumer should worry about is the way that we’ve treated him. Y’know, things break, and if we’ve treated him well and fixed his problem, that’s something that we’re focused on right now. I’m not going to comment on individual failure rates because I’m shipping in 36 countries and it’s a complex business.”

I mentioned this last week, but as soon as I saw this quote, the alarms started flashing. It's a moving target? You know, things break?

WTF?

Failure rates are only a moving target if they're not under control.

Moore emphasizing post-failure response is a pretty dramatic concession that Microsoft has a significant problem, and I think he's also implicitly acknowledging that someone besides Microsoft has access to the data (or can somehow arrive at an accurate estimate).

What I'd really like to know is what the impact of warranty repairs to the 360 have had on the profitability of the entertainment division. iSupply estimated in February that the Premium 360 BOM was down to $323--in other words, the hardware not only isn't losing money anymore, but it's got almost a 20% profit margin. How much of this profitability, though, is being eaten away with the costs of warranty repairs?

One last note on Microsfoft. Take a look at this quote from Robbie Bach (President of Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division) about the Wii in an interview with N'Gai Croal:
It's a very nice product, but it actually has a relatively specific audience and a fairly specific appeal, frankly, based on one feature, which is the controller itself. And the rest of the product is actually not a great product--no disrespect, but...the video graphics on it aren't very strong; the box itself is kind of underpowered; it doesn't play DVDs; there are a lot of down-line components [that] aren't actually that interesting...They don't have the graphics horsepower that even Xbox 1 had.

And yet somehow they're kicking your ass, Robbie. No disrepect.

Here's what Robbie doesn't get: the Wii is goofy. It's fun. There are hundreds of millions of people out there who would enjoy playing games, but have no interest in arguing about the appropriate rate of fire and energy usage of the Spartan Laser. For many people, Robbie, as shocking as this might sound, fun is more important than uber.

Sony did something a bit smarter this week: they shut up. Based on what their executives have said in the last year, I think that shutting up is a fine idea. Jack Tretton did blather today about how the Playstation 3 is a ten-year product, which is utterly ludicrous.

Here's how technology works right now: cutting edge ten years from now is so advanced that it is unknown. So it doesn't matter how many billions of dollars Sony spent in R&D on the PS3--they did the same thing with the PS2, and it was inferior the day the Xbox was released. The PS2 was a seven-product, and it's nothing short of engaging in magical thinking to believe that the PS3 will do any better. It might well be magical thinking to believe that it will even do as well.

By the way, Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter believes that the PS3 will "win" this generation, based on an industry reportthat was published this month:
...we see Sony 'winning' the console war in American and European regions with 36% of the market, with Nintendo 'capturing' second place at 34% and Microsoft finishing third at 30%" -- a virtual "dead heat," with all three generating "significant profits." Japan, however, is expected to be "dominated by Nintendo (51% through 2011) and Sony (44%)."

Fair enough. That's far, far less interesting than what he said last February, though:
Looking past 2007, however, the market seems likely to settle down to a more familiar pattern - "with Sony capturing around 45% of the total market, Microsoft capturing 35%, and Nintendo capturing 20%. These estimates do not include market shares in Japan, which we expect to be dominated by Sony (65% through 2010) and Nintendo (25%)."

If you're wondering how many units Pachter's talking about, he mentions his projections in a Gamespot interview here:
Through 2011, he projects that the PS3 will have sold 73.7 million units worldwide, edging out the Wii's 72.4 million systems. Pachter has the Xbox 360 finishing third among the consoles with 54 million sold worldwide.

Roughly (and there are quite a few variables here, including possible revisions of total market size, so this won't be exact), it looks like Pachter originally expected the PS3 to sell about 100 million units in the same amount of time the PS2 did--about five years from the date of the U.S. launch. Now, though, he's scaled that back over twenty-five million units. That is a staggering revision, and should give you an idea of how much the tide has turned against Sony. If Sony sells 25 million fewer consoles than the PS2 in the first five years when the gaming market has greatly expanded, it will be a disaster.

Of course, they're not going to even get to 75 million in five years, but that's a different post for a different week.

Lastly, Nintendo. Love that little console, love the controller, but where are the damn games? Hurry up, please.

[Eaglesfan27]

It was worse than predicted:

Sony game group down $2 billion

PS3 maker's game division posts $914 million loss for the first three months of 2007--and more than twice that for the full fiscal year.


By Brendan Sinclair (http://www.gamespot.com/users/Polybren/), GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/) Posted May 16, 2007 10:58 am PT


Some customers might think the PlayStation 3's $599 retail price is high, but that's chump change compared to what the machine is costing Sony. The electronics giant today posted its financial results for the fiscal year and fourth quarter ended March 31, and as analysts predicted (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6170776.html), the game division racked up significant losses.

For the fourth quarter alone, Sony reported an operating loss of $914 million from its game division, attributable primarily to the PS3. Sony's new machine was also responsible for a bump in gross revenue, as the company's gaming segment racked up sales of $2.4 billion and helped push company-wide sales to $17.7 billion, up 12.6 percent from the previous fourth quarter.

The full-year picture for Sony's gaming division was similarly grim, with the PS3 driving an increase in revenue, as well as operating losses. For its full fiscal year 2006, Sony's gaming group posted revenue up 6.1 percent to $8.6 billion, but suffered an operating loss of nearly $2 billion.
According to Sony's financial report, "This deterioration was primarily the result of loss arising from the sale of PS3s at strategic price points lower than its production cost during the introductory period, as well as the recording of other charges in association with preparation for the launch of the PS3 platform."

Sony's figures peg PS3 shipments at 5.5 million systems for the fiscal year, with 13.2 million games to go along with them. As for how its older systems fared, Sony reported hardware sales were down for the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable. The company shipped 14.2 million PS2s for the year, down 2 million from the year before, while PSP shipments totaled 8.4 million, down 5.7 million from the year before. Since then, PSP shipments have slowed significantly, with less than 1 million PSPs arriving in North America and Europe since September of 2006, and a negligible amount in the January-March quarter.

The software picture looked a little brighter, as Sony said 54.1 million PSP games shipped to retail, up 12.5 million from the year before. However, PS2 game shipments dropped 30 million to 193 million units.
For the current fiscal year, Sony expects its game division to post better results, but still lose money.

"An increase in sales is anticipated as a result of the full-scale expansion of the PS3 business in Japan, the US, and Europe," Sony said in its quarterly report. "In addition, a significant reduction in operating loss is expected due to rapid reductions in hardware production costs and an enhanced lineup of software titles in the PS3 business."

[dawgfan]

Wow. So despite the PS2 showing incredible sales well into its old age, the PS3 still ended up costing that division $2B...that's amazing.

[Icy]

Big news, Microsoft just started banning users from Live if they suspect that the console has been moddified/pirated (both with chips or even with DVD firmware updates). That is not a really bad thing if you are legit but... it seems they are also banning legit users by mistake.

The official forums, the console forums etc are getting full of users complaining (10 pages thread already in a Spanish console forum and xbox-scene is collapsed because the amount of users trying to get info). I see a lot of guys complaining as they paid full year of live and they are banned forever, some saying that they are going to move to PS3, etc. Let's see how does this affect Microsoft, i see lawsuits comming form the legit users and tons of angry customers plus tons of guys fooled buying cheap 360's in ebay that have been banned already.

I'm not sure how this will benefit MS in the long time, all the banned users won't buy a game again ever, if your console has been banned from Live, there is no reason to buy games instead of pirating them as you have nothing to lose. And those users were also paying the 60€ per year to MS, good bye to that income too.

Here is the message displayed in the banned consoles:

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/4485/dscf1646ex9.jpg

And here Microsoft official answer:

As you can imagine, we have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to modded consoles connecting to LIVE.
We're very serious about this, and if we detect you have a modded Xbox then you will not be able to connect to Xbox Live. If you see this screen and get Status Code: Z: 8015 - 190D…that means your console has been banned.

We'll continue to enforce this rule to ensure the integrity of the service and protect our partners and users.

[dawgfan]

I think they've been doing this for quite a while actually. Banning legit users by mistake will be an issue, yes, but banning the modders really isn't. If someone is chippnig their Xbox, chances are they are buying few (if any) games legitimately anyway, i.e. MS is getting little to no money from them, and perhaps has even lost money to those customers (given that many Xboxes have been sold at a loss).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think they've been doing this for quite a while actually. Banning legit users by mistake will be an issue, yes, but banning the modders really isn't. If someone is chippnig their Xbox, chances are they are buying few (if any) games legitimately anyway, i.e. MS is getting little to no money from them, and perhaps has even lost money to those customers (given that many Xboxes have been sold at a loss).

This was actually announced last week that there would be a major crackdown. The two targeted users were......

1. Anyone who mods the console or pirates the games.
2. Anyone who uses a Xbox from one country to access a different country's marketplace.

The only reason I actually know this is because I am a regular listener to the Cheap Ass Gamer podcast (CAGcast as it's called). The host of the show mentioned that there were going to be a lot of pissed off users because there are a lot of people who are accessing other regions and they will lose their subscription and all downloads associated with no way to get them back. Also, the pirated/mod issues will piss off a lot of homebrew. Hard to tell how it will affect things, but this isn't a surprise that this was coming.

Edit: FYI, if you want to hear it for yourself, you can go to http://www.cheapassgamer.com and listen to episode #75. That episode is actually from May 8th.

[dawgfan]

Maybe they are stepping up their enforcement of this, but they've had programs in place for quite a few years now in cracking down on modders via their access to Xbox Live. I have a cousin who doesn't give a shit about copyrights who modded his Xbox, and got caught when he went on Xbox Live, and this was at least 4 years ago.