I'm pulling for Microsoft right now. They stuck to what worked for them on the original XBOX. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to get a PS3, but the changes that need to be made better get addressed before launch. The only things I don't like about the PS3 right now are: the boomerang controller, no plans for a PS3 online community, and the estimated launch price of $599-$899. Nintendo however.....well that's another story. The highlight of their console as of now is the ability to download classic Nintendo games for a nominal fee. Not to mention the lack of HD support and that wierd looking controller.
Um, no. The highlight of the Revolution is having a whole new controller, and changing the way games are played. For the better.
PS3. Sony has the biggest fanbase.
You're probably right, Roinkz. But I wasn't talking about global sales. I was talking about NTSC units sold. I don't really give a crap about Japan, lol.
Nintendo or sony .Bill Gates sucks Paul Allen rules
I think they'll all have successful sales. Sony will most likely win by sales, Nintendo by money, and Microsoft with more sales than Nintendo (less money) and more money than sony and less sales. Just guessing :-P
I have a feeling that after playing with the new Revolution controller, all the regular controllers are going to feel a bit old style. The Revolution controller is going to bring me closer to games. I'm going to be playing with it wishing they had it back in the day for games I used to play. I couldn't see all games working incredibly well with the controller, but I can definitely see a few surprisingly enjoyable games on the horizon for Nintendo Revolution. Swinging swords and shielding, fishing and golfing, shooting and reloading, and various other things are going to be much more enjoyable with that controller. I think the gamers who oppose the controller and currently find it a bit distasteful will change their minds once they have some time with it. It isn't easy for me to imagine it being annoying or wishing they'd stick to the normal controlling style.
The more I think about it, the more excited I get over it. I'm so looking forward to playing with it. The 360 doesn't really offer me anything new. In fact, I've barely been messin' with it. It is more of the same, really. I'm sure there will be some fun games for it in the future, but overall, my hopes for the next generation of systems is with the Nintendo Revolution.
The only reason why I'd get a Nintendo Revolution is for the old games. Hopefully they do a one time charge or maybe even a yearly or monthly charge. If they do a per game charge then it'd be pointless because i'd just download an emulator. The controller has a neat idea behind it but i'm skeptical to see how it takes off. So the Revolution is so so as of right now in my book. I'll have to mess with it when it arrives.
The PS3 i'd purchase if it kept it's exclusive titles (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, etc), however I see Microsoft stealing a lot of the spotlight and having FF games and maybe even Metal Gear games come to the 360. I hear the Blu-Ray makes it tougher to program games onto and it costs more. Sorta reminds me of the N64's failure to get 3rd party support when they chose to keep the cartridge instead of moving onto a disc. Not to mention i'm hearing about Sony killing off their hardware to keep in the same price range as the 360 making the PS3 obsolete (if that is indeed true). So really I probably won't get one.
The 360 I already have one. I'm very pleased with it. Though there aren't a lot of 360 games out yet i'm quite content with what games I have. (Call of Duty 2, PGR 3, DOA 4, NFS Most Wanted, and Quake 4 (Which I have yet to play). And the month of march brings me Oblivion, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell and Far Cry Instincts Predator. Not to mention a lot of titles the 360 will have that are either exclusive or on PC that the other consoles won't have.
So chances are I will buy a Revolution and I already have my 360. I May break down and get a PS3 just because I like to try everything out for myself.
But honestly I think the PS3 will still win the console war. With Microsoft in second (Whether it's close behind or far behind) and Nintendo trailing but thats because Nintendo's supposedly not competing (yeah right).
Sony does have the biggest fan bas but, like they did with the PSP they are butting in all this crap I don't want or need into the PS3. Nintendo has the new controller and the download old games thing but not a lot of mainstream gamers buy Nintendo systems. Xbox360 has good online and high definition graphics but I don't know much more about it than that so I still can't say who I think will win.
Once the rev comes out how is any other company going to top it Sony would have to make a system to play ps1,ps2 games all in one I think as many games as nintendo and sony has they would join something. In the future atari is going to come back and make a system that out blows microsoft,sony and it's compation. That's my thought.
I think it's entirely possible that we could see a repeat of what's happening between DS and PSP, but I don't want to say any more than that. I'm inclined to say Xbox 360 will win through gut feeling (same gut feeling I had for PSP), but in my opinion all logic points to Revolution being the winner.
[quote=kinco]no plans for a PS3 online community
Have you been under some kind of rock? PS3 online will be better than Xbox Live. Better than Xbox Live. Better than Xbox Live. Better than Xbox Live. Now, say that a hundred times before bed each night so Kutaragi doesn't rape you in your sleep.
I think I can easily see it being the 360, but I'll probably just get the Revo anyway.
Microsoft. Because of the "early" 360 release, I think that gave them a little bit of a lead.
My 360 has annoyed me more than any other system I've ever had. Even with a few great launch titles, it still had a terrible start.
Microsoft's production problems will probably negate it's 12-month head start, or at least make it much less significant.
It's obvious that the PS3 will get more sales, but they wont "win", if this is what you mean.
I'll have to go w/ microsoft, even though it's not on the greatest start, it got a lead, and if you think about it, it was a descent sized lead.....I think it will be followed by hair, by sony, for the ps3. And nintendo.......not much to say about nintendo, I'm kind of dissapointed w/ the ds and all.
Nintendo. The revolution is really going to be popular among non gamers/casual gamers. I really believe it will be. It might take a bit of time to spread. But then again, they are going to show it on Oprah.
[quote=Vampiro]All consoles go through this. There's a big rush to get the launch titles out the door then a few months where nothing comes out at all.
But yeah, it's pretty annoying.
More sales basically means they win. I mean, if it was based on something else like profit, Nintendo would be in first, rather than third.
Contrary to popular belief, it's profit that really counts. You think Microsoft gives a s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it that they sold a couple million more units than Nintendo when they lost over 4 billion on their console?
People assume that Nintendo are going to go software only because Gamecube sold the least when in actual fact they are the most stable company in the industry.
No one's games sell like theirs do, no one makes as many games as they do (with the exception of EA and their yearly roster updates, but that's hardly fair), and games sales are what really matters in this industry, not hardware. You can bet your ass that if Microsoft fails to produce a profit once again, even if they have the most units sold, their next unit will either be extremely cheap or they'll bow out of the race altogether.
Aside from that, there's no such thing as a "winner" in business anyway. If there is, a winner is chosen every quarter and it's based on profits.
That's ****ed good advertising.
i fink sony have already won, what do people auotmatically think of when asked about gaming?playstation, simple.sony made gaming cool for the mainstream, they have a massive and immediately available back log of titles and they know how to market themselves. even with the 360s headstart, it wont mean much when the ps3 gets here cos of all the problems the xbox has.
You could say the same thing about computers, portable music players, the 16-bit era and handhelds. Fact is, brand name means nothing.
I think it'll be close. I think Nintendo will raise their sales and so will Microsoft. I believe the PS3 won't have nearly as high of the sales of the PS2 but I'm probably going to stick with the PS3 winning overall with Microsoft close behind and Nintendo winning profit wise.
Well I think it can be close. With Microsoft gaining more gaming support and the high cost of the PS3 not to mention it being harder to develope games for the PS3, I think the 360 sales will boost. Don't think they'll win but I think it'll open some peoples eyes.
I'm not sure.But I hope it is the revolution so I can play all the Zelda games!
Zelda is awsome! GO ZELDA!!!!!!!!!!
[quote=Vampiro]We know that the Cell and Blue-Rau drive alone costs $900. So, if that gives us any hint towards the price, it's definitely going to be expensive. Unless Sony doesn't care about losing A LOT of money. I mean, they will anyways, but going from the average loss of $150, to something like $400 is HUGE.
Agreed
False. Cell and Blu-Ray drives alone cost around $350.
I can't see Sony selling a $900 system for $400. Their either going to have to delay launch or lose a hell of a lot of money.
We'll never know for sure, Sony would never release that kind of information. They can logically put together a pretty decent picture, however. You can work out how much a chip will cost based on the fabrication process and the amount of transistors it has, they can find out how much manufacturers are being charged for Blu-Ray drives, etc.
well, whatever. Either way, I see the ps3 going for at least $400 or more just like the xbox 360 started out with a $300 "bare bones" pack & a $400 "stuffed" pack. So I'm going for nintendo, hopefully their systems won't be priced nearly that high (I've been reading from egm & gamepro that they suspect the price maybe $250.) And also, since we'll be able to use the gamecube controller as an addon to the "remote" control with the rev, it should still be able to keep up the pace with all of the other multiplatform games. And who really knows how popular the "remote" controller from nintendo is going to be. Anyways, with that said, I'm definitely going to wait till thanksgiving to buy a revolution.
oooh, ouch!! I just saw this from the xbox forums!!
All fansboys suck. Go where the games are. I don't care who wins. The only real losers here are the fanboys. It sucks to ignore a cool product simple because you prefer another company.
fanboys are the scum of the earth
I don't know who will be #1, but I think Nintendo will be #2.
Honestly...i really shouldnt be guessing until all of them are out, its awefully hard to say...especially with the price factor. But i know it will either be PS3 or 360 on top. And if you ask me, unless 360 gets the same quality games that the PS2 had...its going to come in at least second and sony will once again reign supreme.
Lookie what I found. Conclusive proof that, of all 3 of the main games company's, Nintendo is the least likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.
[URL="http://theboard.zogdog.com/index.php?showtopic=10681"]http://theboard.zogdog.com/index.php?showtopic=10681[/URL]
Hardly conclusive. There are LESS GC games, which means that the few there *are* are going to sell better. if you look at total software sales, and total unit sales, sony and MS **** on them.
that thread is completely flawed. Assuming any of those facts are correct, this is what i have to say. Sony can ship 110 million PS3's and only sell 13 million GTA3's because, for one, its a mature rated title. So, those under 17 cant buy it, and many childrens parent's arent willing to buy a game with that type of content in it. Not to mention the fact that many stores wouldnt even sell the game due to its nature. As for xbox and halo, it is also mature, violent fps title, that might not sell as well due to reasons stated above.
Lets move on to the GC...with its measly 20 million console sales. No parent has any qualms about buying their child a go-kart game. Or one where you jump around and bonk pokemon on the head with a hammer cartoon style...rather than running rampant through the streets shooting rocket launchers. Notice only 2.7 million metroid primes were sold...hardly a 10% ratio.
And with 110 million console sales averaging 175-200 dollars a piece...thats roughly half a billion worth of game sales...and thats assuming each game is 50 dollars...which after a while, they certainly are not.
And that B.S. top selling console video games is some of the most biased reading ive done in quite some time. Honestly...did nintendo have any real competition up until about the 'mid lifespan' of the N64...no it sure as hell didnt. As for the portable handheld devices. Sure...sega has had a few...but nintendo has always dominated that area, up until the release of the PSP, which is becoming ever more popular. So is it really any suprise that the NES, SNES, GB, GBA, N64 have a bunch of top selling titles before nintendo had any real competition...i should hope not. And look at the gamecube, its right on par with the PS2...so it hasnt made leaps and bounds like it should have with such a obvious head start over its competitors...IMO its severely slacking. of the 20 top selling nex gen console titles...PS2 holds 17 of them...so who is lying?
So, take that thread with a grain of salt...because a lot of it is biased B.S.
The fact that a game didn't sell as well because it is violent and has a smaller audience doesn't change the fact that it just plain didn't sell as well.
You're right, though, You can't really count the sales of Nintendo games on the list for anything but the N64 and GameCube... in terms of sales, Nintendo pretty much lost. At the same time, you can't just say "Sony and Microsoft **** on them," either... their sales may not have measured up, but you have to keep in mind that they still had their memorable titles. Just because a Nintendo game selling 6 million was outnumbered by a Playstation game selling 7 million doesn't mean there aren't 6 million people out there who thought it was ****ed awesome.
What the hell? Nintendo sell more games than anyone else, fact. Since game sales are what's important in this industry, hardware platforms only exist as a medium through which to sell gammes, that would make Nintendo the most successful. Compare that list with financial reports and you'll quickly find that Nintendo are by far the most stable games company in the industry.
[quote]There are LESS GC games, which means that the few there *are* are going to sell better. if you look at total software sales, and total unit sales, sony and MS **** on them.
How the hell does that work? There are also less GC owners. That list is a list of the top selling videogames of all time, the fact that GC has an equal number of games on that list as PS2 despite having a quarter to a fifth of the userbase says something.
Demonblade:
I love how you're making excuses for violent games when it's precisely the creator's fault that it's violent in the first place. You could make excuses about every game in history about why it isn't the best selling, like "oh it's too violent", "not that many people understand it", "it only appeals to a limited audience". Fact is that games are a business, if they make the mistake of making a game too violent for most people to enjoy and sales reflect that then that's their stupid mistake, not anyone elses. The real winner in this industry is the one that makes the most games that appeal to most people.
How on Earth is Nintendo not having any decent competition supposed to reflect badly on them? Hello? If all the competition pales in comparison then they're doing something right, surely?
Very little money is made from hardware. They take several billion dollars to design, compared to a couple million for a game, and cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture, compared to a few cents for a disc-based game or a few dollars for a cartridge. Software is where the real money is made, not hardware. Your arguement is moot anyway. Nintendo made a profit on Gamecube since launch, something that can't be said for Sony or especially Microsoft.
I don't know where you got 17 from because PS2 has 26 titles on that list; most not made by Sony. Nintendo has 26 Gamecube and 27 GBA games on the list for a total of 53 for the same generation. 53 top selling titles mostly made by Nintendo VS 26 top selling titles mostly made by 3rd parties this generation. Nintendo made more money, there's nothing else you can take from that list.
Well I can't trully judge the next gen systems as of yet, but I can guess what will happen. I think its going to be a close war between them all. I do think that Sony will have a little more. I think the Xbox 360 will grow bigger in fan base causing it to come very close to the PS3 in the console war.
As for the Revolution I think it will do well. I think it will be right up there with both the PS3 and 360. Now I can't say that the Rev will kick *** or not, but I think it will do better then what the Gamecube did.
But anyways I think all 3 new consoles are going to be extrmemly close in the console war.
[quote=Demonblade]you just dont understand. Nintendo 'has' sold more games than anyone else...because hell, its been around over ten years longer than anyone else. So if it had not...id call it more pathetic than it already is.
RANK - TITLE - PLATFORM - PUBLISHER
1 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - PS2 - Take II Interactive
2 - Halo 2* - XBX - Microsoft
3 - Madden NFL 2005* - PS2 - Electronic Arts
4 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 - Take II Interactive
5 - Need For Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
6 - Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter - GBA - Nintendo of America
7 - NBA Live 2005 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
8 - Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 - Activision
9 - Halo - XBX - Microsoft
10 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - XBX - Take II Interactive
*Includes Limited & Collector
And i think you misunderstood what i meant by lack of competition. I wasnt stating that nintendos consoles and game variety were so good that they blew all of there other competitors out of the water...what i mean, was that they had no other competitors. It wasnt until the last year or so that the PSP came out. Microsoft has yet to produce a portable gaming device. Gameboy on the other hand...has been around for nearly 2 decades. It can be said that, due to there being no other console to compete with the GBA/GB...those 27 titles only became popular because there was no other portable device available.
Also...did you happen to notice on that list that is provided in that thread that there are 7 PS2 titles and 2 xbox titles that come before even the first GC title? So, the only console that nintendo has any real competition on....has 9 games from its competitor placed before its first, in terms of worldwide sales. Sony's number one game has sold nearly 2 and a half times as many copies as nintendos number one.
Hmm...ill gladly take 5 games that sell over 10 million units each where i earn 15% profit, rather than 1 game that sells 6.4 million copies...earning 100% profit.
That doesn't add up at all. Assuming most popular Gamecube and PS2 games cost around the same and reduce their price to "1 sale credit", 15% of 50 million is 3 and 1/3 million sale credits... only a little more than half of 6.4 sale credits, what Nintendo would get for their one game.
EDIT - Though I figured who "won" had to do with game sales themselves, not profit from game sales, as it deems which system is more popular. Finances only becomes a problem if the company is going bankrupt.
It doesnt take several billion dollars to develop a console., and let me explain how the less games means more sales for each game works.
Guy gets a GC, walks into a shop to buy a GC game. Say he buys every GC game, say thats 60.
Guy gets a PS2, walks into a shop to buy a PS2 game, say he buys every PS2 game, say thats about 400.
You see?
GC might have the most top SELLING games but not the most sales TOTAL.
If i can take the UK as an example, there are over 1million isntalled units, last survey i said said that every PS2 owner in the UK had an average of 6 games.
that means if thats applied to the total amouint of units (110mil+) that sony have sold a total of 660mil games. You honestly think the GC has sold 660mil?
Oh and nintendo dont get 100% of the cash from a $50 game, nor does any game maker/console maker.
heres an estimate of what happens.
20% goes to the retailer for a start
15% goes to the publisher
35%goes to the developer.
20% goes to the console creator
10% goes on manufacturing costs.
it does mean that out of a $50 game, sony would get about $10, and nintendo would get $35ish, but theres a few things you're neglecting to see. - Nintendo have much higher development and publishing *costs* and they need to pay their staff. So lets add that into the equation.
Say a game makes 1million sales, at $50 a sale, pretty successful game, makes sense.
so out of that nintendo have $35million to work with.
Say to make this game they had 30 people working on it for 2 years, each one with an average wage of $65000. Say the costs of publishing (advertising etc) was $1million. Now add in the development costs of outside freelance help, say an average of 5 people a month, each being paid $10000, Thats about another 1.4mil. So, nintendo lose about
wages - 4mil
outisde help - 1.4mil
publishing costs - 1 mil
6.5 mil, making 29mil profit.
Say nintendo will release 6 games a year that sell 1million copies on the GC - thats a profit of about 180mil.
Now lets look at sony. Say there will be about 20 games that will sell more than 1 mil copies for the PS2 a year (correct me if im wrong, but i tihnk thats about the right amount)
sont gets 20% of that 50million for each game, with no costs. thats $200mil.
Not to mention there are *more* PS2 games, which sell less, which means sony also gets profits from all of those :)
sony's strategy is similar to ATI's - ATI bought all the best staff from voodoo etc when the collapsed, but none of the fabrication plants, so they didnt have to pay manufacturing costs etc. Sony dont make many games, which means they have minimal costs, which means what they make is basically pure profit.
bear in mind those figures are theoretical, but im sure if you done it with actual figures, the result would be the same. In fact, i dont think the GC has 6 games a year that sell that much...
ninty makes most of its money from the handhelds, where, in all fairness, it is king. With consoles... not so impressive.
I hope you can wrap your mind around that simple concept. :)
To answer the title of the thread, I'm fairly sure that it'll be Microsoft that will come out on top this time around. Why?
Well, the gaming community really isn't as tribal as it used to be. Time was, you'd be a Mega Drive(Genesis) nut or a SNES man, but you'd not defect into the other camp. Now, though, it's Nintendo and non-Nintendo. And even if you've had a PS2 last generation, you'll be wanting the bigger and better toy, and you're not going to have any qualms about getting a 360. And you do, and you enjoy it. But ten the PS3 comes along with its $400+ price tag, and you can't justify that much expenditure when you'll only get $250 ish for your 360 now that it's six or seven months old. So you don't buy a PS3, and those who do are in the minority.
You can, however, justify $150 max for that nifty little black box that you play by moving about - and the novelty is definitely a powerful deciding factor. So Nintendo slowly crawl back up to the top spot.
Maybe I'm overstating it a little bit, but there's no doubt in my mind that Sony will lose ground and that the other two will pick up the slack.
Now, on to other things. I'd like to point out that sales etc. don't matter in the console war. All that matters is media saturation. This is because the only people who care about who wins are the fans.
Yeah, that's right. Iwata doesn't lose any sleep over the fact that he's not sold as much hardware as Kutaragi. The best way to gauge it is just to go out in the street and ask someone to name a game company. Most people won't even say Sony or Microsoft, either; they'll say the brand name, Xbox or PlayStation. If they do say Nintendo, though, they'll say Nintendo, not GameCube. What can we draw from this, apart from the fact that Nintendo are more known because games are all they do, whereas Microsoft and Sony are better known in other areas? Well - that Microsoft and Sony are 'winning', in that more people know about their products.
Case in point. I recently unpacked my GameCube at my Grandma's house. She immediately started referring to it as an 'Xbox'. That's good marketing, a memorable name, and what wins people over - word of mouth.
Lol, exactly. My dad still calls my systems 'a Sega', universally.
[quote=Demonblade]Hmm...ill gladly take 5 games that sell over 10 million units each where i earn 15% profit, rather than 1 game that sells 6.4 million copies...earning 100% profit.
What Linko said plus the fact that Nintendo has good-selling 3rd party games on their systems. The thing you're missing is that Nintendo doesn't have a fifth of the great-selling titles as Sony does on their platform, it has the exact same amount. I've said this before, both platforms have 26 titles on that list. The difference is Nintendo gets 100% profit from them, Sony does not.
NIntendo do *not* make 100% of the cash, we went over this. And i thought I had made the uselessness of your little list clear speed. That only accounts for *top selling* games and we're talking about the *gamecube* Most of the nintendo games on that list are over a decade old.if you want to do that, then you should be taking into account all of sonys profits from electrical goods sales, and playstation stuff.
Nintendo might have more games on the list.
Sony have more *recent* games on the list
Microsoft have more *recent* games on the list.
Nintendo might have the most in house games on the list.
Sony sell many, many more times as many games in total, all of which they get profit from.
Microsoft blah blah blah, same as above.
In short Nintendo do make some profit on their games, more than sony and microsoft make on 3rd party ones. The problem is their PLATFORM is the weakest of the three, which means they dont get nearly as much money from sales of other games.
Do you understand now, or should i type slower?
EDIT : Can i ask if Linko or speedfreak have any experience whatsoever in either business, or games development, or even software retail?
Second EDIT : Handheld games dont sell for as much as console games. Handhelds are were nintendo has dominance. The point is why will they continue to invest in consoles and console games, if they just aren't making any money on it, when they could focus on handhelds, where they make plenty? THAT is why everyone in the industry thinks that if the revolution doesnt do well outside of japan (which due to poor PR at themoment it doesnt look like it will) Ninty will just stop producing consoles in the traditional form altogether (though not handhelds.)
THIRD EDIT : Having checked nintendos accounts for 2005, they only had a total net income of approx $800million. Their liabilities totalled
Sony's total sales totalled almost $100billion. Granted this is gross, and not net, and not just the Playstation, but also electronics. But since you're coutning handhelds, i figure what the hell, we'll count all of sony and microsofts income, and prove that ninty are the most likely to go bust.
MIcrosoft had a revenue of US$39.79 billion in the fiscal year ending 2005 (this is the same as nintendo's amount. Ninty made $800million, microsoft made $39.79 billion. If i was to estimate, i'd say sony made around about $25-30 billion.)
There you go, proof, were it needed, that the Nintendo is the weakest in the console market, and the company with the least fiscal income. not to mention the fact nintendo has a liability 10 times the size of its income (if the stockmarket goes heads up again, nintendo will crash and burn, basically)
Nintendo has just as much recent titles (as in this generation) on that list as Nintendo does, they both have 26. I shouldn't have to repeat this.
GBA games do count because although they retail for less than console games they're also much cheaper to produce.
Video game systems DO cost billions of dollars to develop. We've had report after report over the last 2 years or so saying exactly that. For example, Nintendo have poured well over a billion dollars into Revolution R&D, Sony and Microsoft had to put in even more for their powerful but extremely expensive chips.
Microsoft's total profits are completely irrelevent, as they are also a general software company. If you look at Microsoft Game Studios' profits you would see they are still nonexistant (Xbox 360s currently sell for a loss on top of being $4 billion in the hole already).
Sony's profits are extremely suspicious given that theyre retreating from many markets and losing in the rest, on top of all the money they're pouring into PS3. That's a debate for another thread, though. Nevertheless, Sony are also a consumer electronics company. Again, look for their revenue from the games industry.
The reason I include Nintendo's handhelds but not Microsofts computer software or Sony's other electronics is because handheld games are still part of the games industry. Word processers and CD players are not, and we're looking at who makes the most from the games industry. Quite simple, really.
I never once denied that Nintendo take in less money from royalties on their platforms for just their home console. As far as pure royalties from 3rd party games on their home consoles go, Sony is the clear winner with Nintendo in 2nd place and Microsoft in dead last.
However, Nintendo more than makes up for this when you take into account their handheld systems. Games on handhelds sell far better than on any console, and the attatch rate is much higher, with the exception of the PSP which has seen abysmal software sales and attatch rates. Factor in profits from Nintendo's own games and you have a clear winner.
Lastly, the fact that Linko is wrong is irrelevent, as the example he was drawing a conclusion from was wrong in the first place.
Err... your point was that nintendo would be the last company to go under - showing they are financially the weakest DISPROVES that point...
And if we were talking about the current generation of consoles, which was the other possibility, then the GC is the weakest and thus makes ninty the least likely to drop out of the market.
:)
Edit : TO quote you "Lookie what I found. Conclusive proof that, of all 3 of the main games company's, Nintendo is the least likely to be going anywhere anytime soon."
Oh and for the record, companies go for MARKET SHARE not profits, since once you have an established market share, your opponents will be making less profit, and you will be making more. Thats why both microsoft and sony are perfectly happy to lose plenty of money to gain the majority market share.
[quote=Decado]Err... your point was that nintendo would be the last company to go under - showing they are financially the weakest DISPROVES that point...
And if we were talking about the current generation of consoles, which was the other possibility, then the GC is the weakest and thus makes ninty the least likely to drop out of the market.
:)
Edit : TO quote you "Lookie what I found. Conclusive proof that, of all 3 of the main games company's, Nintendo is the least likely to be going anywhere anytime soon."
Oh and for the record, companies go for MARKET SHARE not profits, since once you have an established market share, your opponents will be making less profit, and you will be making more. Thats why both microsoft and sony are perfectly happy to lose plenty of money to gain the majority market share.
Bull, going for market share instead of profits would be an insanely stupid business decision, as market share can completely change hands in the space of a single generation. These companies are in the games industry to make money, not to look cool.
My point was Nintendo are the least likely to drop out of the games industry. Sony and Microsoft wouldn't have to go completely bankrupt in order for them to decide that games are no longer a decent way of making money. For example, if Microsoft once again failed to make any money, and lost another $4 billion that wouldn't make the company bankrupt, but it would be enough to make them drop out of the race. The same goes for Sony.
Aside from that, Nintendo aren't the most likely anyway. Sony is in a much worse position than Nintendo is. They've had 40 quarters of consecutive losses, they've lost the portable music market completely to Apple, Samsung and LG TVs are selling better than theirs, their PCs never made much money and their credit rating has been lowered. I've said this so many times, the only thing holding that company up right now is Playstation, and PS3 won't make any money for the first 2 years of it's lifespan. There is not a sane financial advisor out there that would advise you to invest in Sony.
In order of financial stability they go:
1. Microsoft
2. Nintendo
3. Sony
[quote=Decado]Can i ask if Linko or speedfreak have any experience whatsoever in either business, or games development, or even software retail?
Linko
At the same time, you can't just say "Sony and Microsoft **** on them," either... their sales may not have measured up, but you have to keep in mind that they still had their memorable titles.
Thats what i was saying you were wrong about. The "memorability" of the titles has nothing to do with it.
Speedfreak, please give me some evidence to back up your claim that Sony have made straight losses for the last decade. "hey've had 40 quarters of consecutive losses"
For proof that in my last post my figuresd werent theoretical, check the nintendo/microsoft/sony websites and hit corporate for their fiscal reports (and no, companies cant just lie on these)
As for the post before, i already said if my figures are way off, feel free to correct them, don't just go "i tihnk your skewing them" find some evidence to back it up.
And speedfreak, given that i handle the business affairs for a game company, and freelance it for a few others, i KNOW that gaining market share is a sound business strategy - Its what microsoft done with the xbox, and its what EVERY console manufacturer does in the first 6-12 months of its lifespan - sells at a loss to gain market share.
Having your console out there promotes customer loyalty, takes business away from your rivals, gets your brand name out there, gets you reputation, increases the chances of people buying other products you make, etc etc.
and over the past decade people have been advised to invest in sony many many times, despite them "making losses" for every quarter over the past 10 years.
Oh and please *please* tell me where you got a business mind so great you can second guess everyone at microsoft, in fact everyone in the industry, and say your business plan is better, what businesses have you run? what massive turnovers have you gained? I'm guessing none, because you don't *actually* know anything about business.
Oh and link, you don't show a complex off... you *have* a complex that you need to fulfill ;)
And maybe i have been arrogant, but thats just because you have peopel like speedfreak making stupid claims that "no business cares about market share"
The fact that you think losing 4 billion dollars to gain something that can be and has been lost in the space of a single generation makes me extremely sceptical of your supposed position.
I don't need to prove to you that Microsoft's business plan last generation was abysmal, Microsoft have already done it for me by chucking it out of the window. In fact, the way Microsoft designed their console is pretty much a direct repeat of how Nintendo designed theirs. They recognised that Gamecube was much better value for money (as far as hardware goes) than Xbox ever was and that Nintendo managed to make millions from it despite not having the greatest 3rd party support or the largest userbase.
This is precisely what I'm getting at. Nintendo can be beaten, they have been beaten twice in a row. But unlike Sega before them, being beaten doesn't put them in a weaker position financially. Sega eventually went bankrupt through several consoles not making any money and their completely insane management. Nintendo could spend the next 10 generations in 3rd place and still be here because of the one thing they do that Sega and Microsoft didn't: cover their a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]ses and make sure they make a profit before trying to take over the world.
Um, still waiting on the proof that sony made losses every wuarter for the last 10 years, and *any* proof that microsofts strategy wasnt successful (Look earlierin the thread, people know the name XBOX, that means it was successful.)
EDIT : I am head of business development for a company that makes a little known product calledRPG Inferno... maybe you've heard of it. I took it from a userbase of 200 over 2 years, to a userbase of over 800, in 1 year.
It means the marketing strategy was successful, yes. Not the console.
... nothing about it was successful.
Sure, people in the gaming world know about N-Gage. Most everyone else has pretty much never heard about it.
Quoting Decado: Thats what i was saying you were wrong about. The "memorability" of the titles has nothing to do with it.
If you still think I'm talking about business and profit, you missed the point entirely.
[quote=Decado]Oh and link, you don't show a complex off... you *have* a complex that you need to fulfill ;)
There it is again!! lawz.
[quote=Decado]Um, still waiting on the proof that sony made losses every wuarter for the last 10 years, and *any* proof that microsofts strategy wasnt successful (Look earlierin the thread, people know the name XBOX, that means it was successful.)
EDIT : I am head of business development for a company that makes a little known product calledRPG Inferno... maybe you've heard of it. I took it from a userbase of 200 over 2 years, to a userbase of over 800, in 1 year.
It's common knowledge that Microsoft lost a billion dollars every year, search for it yourself. I'm looking for the Sony thing right now.
EDIT: What I have is this, a post from a forum I go to (populated by a bunch of nerds that know a hell of a lot about hardware and business). Obviously this doesn't count as proof, and I don't expect you to take it as such, I'm just showing you where I got it from. I'm going to ask the guy where he got the figures from and I'll give you the answer as soon as I get it.
[quote]Microsoft Mysteries:
360 production isn't there; 360 kiosks are turned down most everywhere; 360 does much worse than expected in Japan; MS has had record profits but the press has been strangely negative.
Recent Sony Mysteries:
Sony like the resurrection of Christ is suddenly in the black. And scrutiny of their earnings report is diverted by an IBM earnings report scandal. Suddenly over the holidays there is supposedly a huge surge in PSPs-a product which was struggling and which costs a practically bankrupt Sony more money to make than sell. Are we are supposed to believe that this along with software sales for the obsolete PS2 brought Sony out of a deep deep hole? Oh, and I forgot sales on a screen product no one has heard of.
But where is the attach rate on those PSPs? Especially when we are supposed to believe that Sony sold more in one month on the languishing platform than 360s were expected to sell in their first six months. Granted, they aren't direct competitors. Sounds like the kind of cheating that's been there since from the beginning if Sony needed to seem competitive. No? Was this a goverment purchase? Are there PSP's paid for but still sitting in a wharehouse?
Sony has had 40 quarters of consecutive losses 20 of which were spurred on by MS. So I guess the latest stunts have encouraged MS to create a direct competitor to PSP. MS can do that in a heartbeat because there were PDAs (Dell Axim V50) at the time of the PSP launch that were already superior and beter for games- better screen, way better wireless; xbox on a chip; more expandable; more compact; way way more ram; better battery life; xna family; touch sensitive; not much price disparity (in real terms.) Its funny to think that PSP is a PS2 that isn’t backwards compatible, lets see if PS3 isn’t backwards compatible. The chairman’s suggestion about Arcade on a Xbox portable seems right on.
Lets just hope governments don't have a quiet way to buy up PS3s. Come to think of it the attach rate on the PS2 was kind of strange as well.
EDIT: Alright, this is what I've got:
[quote]Speedfreak_UK. Sorry I don't have a solid source in memory and none to offer otherwise. When I went back to find it. I couldn't. I am pretty sure I got it from a knowlegeable poster off the Xbox Forums on MS's site. Believe the nic was SmokeDawg. It fit with other things I kept hearing and was offered in such a convincing way that it seemed very likely to be more than hearsay.
Creative accounting may have allowed Sony to paint their previous 40 quarters in another light to the general public. They don't seem to use the same accounting system in Japan- its said to be even worse than our GAAP. I think the same poster found the claim, which I reiterated, that Sony was expected to post a %33 loss (over all) coming up this quarter. Instead there was the supposed profit. To me that was mysterious. Others said it was simply currency fluctuations. Yet, it seems that when ever Sony gets horrendous news it never seems to effect the stock by more than %1. I think confidence in Sony comes from confidence in the loyalty of the Japanese government to the firm. It would be like Airbus and the support it gets. Take away Sony and Toyota and what do you have? Still, in its competition against MS, Sony is out of its depth and its reputation for unreasonable success is not surviving. Bottom line was that it probably came from some unglamorized report by some analyst.
So I'm gonna take back the 40 quarter statement, but I still maintain that Sony are pulling out of markets and reporting losses. A quick search on Google will prove that.
You're missing the point, losing money doesn't mean an unsuccessful marketing strategy, certainly not when the company as a whole makes such massive profits.supermarkets, department stores, every business you care to think for des the exact same thing. When they move into a market they sell those goods on "sale" at prices which either earn them nothing or lose them money. This is to get customers in, and gain a market share in that particular area. Slightly different with consoles, but the same premise nonetheless. You get people buying your product, instead of your competitors. Works for MS because the XB360 was out first, so they get their sales that way. Sony will be relying on having the most popular games (as per last two incarnations, no matter what those charts say, more people buy playstations for MGS, GT, GTA than bought a gamecube for a crap game of zelda (zelda is good, the GC one was disappointing) )
I have a PSP. I also have a DS. Yes, I bought the PSP and Sony got the money for it. But because I have a DS, I buy the games for that, and so Sony don't see any of the commission from those games for me - and I know that this is a situation we're seeing a lot of at the moment.
Having all those PSPs out on the market doesn't necessarily mean that they're making money from them. I haven't bought a PSP game since about a month after I got it.
[quote=Decado]You're missing the point, losing money doesn't mean an unsuccessful marketing strategy, certainly not when the company as a whole makes such massive profits.supermarkets, department stores, every business you care to think for des the exact same thing. When they move into a market they sell those goods on "sale" at prices which either earn them nothing or lose them money. This is to get customers in, and gain a market share in that particular area. Slightly different with consoles, but the same premise nonetheless. You get people buying your product, instead of your competitors. Works for MS because the XB360 was out first, so they get their sales that way. Sony will be relying on having the most popular games (as per last two incarnations, no matter what those charts say, more people buy playstations for MGS, GT, GTA than bought a gamecube for a crap game of zelda (zelda is good, the GC one was disappointing) )
I'm well aware that Microsoft's marketing strategy was successful. What I've been saying is that a $4 billion dollar loss isn't worth a 15-20% mindshare, especially since history has proven that mindshare can change VERY rapidly. Take a look at Nintendo replacing Atari; Playstation replacing Nintendo, Apple replacing IBM then Windows replacing Apple and iPod replacing Walkman. These changes aren't what you could call gradual, they happened extremely quickly.
iPod replacing Walkman was gradual. Discman never sold particularly well.
But yeah. Sony started REALLY going downhill once the BMG DRM rootkit was revealed.
I think i'm going to stop caring about who wins and probably just buy all three anyways. I know i'll say I won't buy a PS3 but chances are when the price is slashed I probably will pick one up. There are games on each system that I love to play that require you to buy each system to play.
I'm thinking Sony again, but it's still possible Microsoft or Nintendo could come out out on top.
Theres really no point in fighting about it. Nintendo say they're not even competing, Microsoft has been out already for sometime making it unfair, and Sony has such a large fanbase they'll probably win anyways.
PS3 no doubt about if they dont face shortage on release they shall dominate the next gen consoles, i think the revoultion controller turns me off and that the 360 didnt have that many games when it came out which was one of the problems with it, but i think if that sony can not face shortages and release a quality line of games upon release they will win the console war
Sony will face a shortage on release. They engineer it that way. However, it creates hype and it ends up they sell more anyway.
Sony won't needto engineer a shortage, PS3 is screwed as it is. They're still bidding on components, developers don't know when they're getting final devkits and the PS3 itself won't fit inside it's already huge casing.
Ive been think of this for a long time. Thinking if the fundematal ideas of the market would change or not.
Ive come to this conclusion.
This Next gen will Visably show a slight difference but the Seeds of change will be planted.
Ofcourse these seeds will be planted by Nintendo and the Revolution. It is the only company that can plant them, the other guys just think too in the box.
How so I think it will happen?
Well theres the base market the in the start will be like it is now. There will be the die hard fans that would jump off a bridge if the favorite company did too, and also those ones who pedge no loyalty. Ones the buy one or two and ones that buy everything. In the past alot of people bought a PS2 or Box and then bough a GC because they could afford it.
We know Nintendo will be cheepest by nature.
BUT...
It will be different this time. In the past what nintendo gave ( I will fully admit) was like the competitor. If you have difficult in knowing what I mean think of it this way. Think of the Last gen as Cars , Though each was different in its own way they were still cars.
But NOW Nintendo will offer something completly new and Innovative . Think of my anology again , except this time Nintendo is offering a slick motercycle. Its some thing new , and for cheep. Now people will have more incentive to purchase a Revolution becuase not only is it new, its cheep. people like trying things that are new, and people like things cheep. This should increase nintendos sales by a good margine.
Thus the seeds are planted.
If Nintendo does the revolution right they can use there larger base to get people back on the nintendo band wagon. People that were lost during the N64, new people just getting into gaming. With a larger fan Base they can do more and if they play there cards right and sony keeps playing the same game Nintendo could reach the top again.
Ofcourse you never know. Its Just from what I see right now.
It looks like the Revolution already is making good moves. It had alot of fans when they said it could play old school nintendo. Plus from the first Rev game Red Steel it looks like there making smart choices.
But things could change. Things are still unknown.
Just my 2 cents
Then that's completely subjective. Thus, completely irrelevant. Maybe not to you, but to the company itself, and the fans in general.
I like all three systems, but the PS2 the least, because it's the least powerful and least reliable.
Can't blame Xbox Live for having a subpar community. Pretty much EVERY online game has a bad community, except for small tight groups. People just act like *******s online.
The fact that Nintendo have chosen such a radical name for their home system and that there are more DS ads than PSP ads on UK Television shows that this time around they're going to be a marketing powerhouse.
Every time I hear something new about Wii I begin to realise just how much Sony and Microsoft don't have a clue where the hell Nintendo are coming from. They're going to be utterly impossible to shoot down.
I made a typo.
EDIT: Though upon looking up the definition of "Radical", saying "radically different" is actually redundant. The meaning of "radical" is "Departing markedly from the usual or customary".
So the name is, in fact, radical. Fail for Unite.
I must say whether the name is silly or not i'm becoming more anxious to get a Revolution or Wii. I've been yearning to play a lot of the older great titles. I love my Xbox 360 don't get me wrong, but I grew up playing on my NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis. Sure i'm older now and I like more violent games but to be honest I thought RPGs back in the day kicked todays RPGs.
[quote=Unite]but radical dosen't mean good
Nintendo could of named it "**** in a box" and word radical could be used also.
I didn't say it did, fuckwit. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Wii Will Rock You!
Heh, I did, actually.
Wii Will Rock You!
You can stop that right now. It's not going to carry over, you know.
You have absolutely no idea.
Wii Will Rock You!
Grr!
1. Nintendo Wii
2. Xbox 360
3. PS3
Sony, simpily because Wii fails.
Nintendo will win E3 if the Revolution's games can play well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Made a wrong post there, well I can't really say who is going to win the console war this generation yet. I'll say that Microsoft comes out on top this time around.
I've chosen to hold off on my 360 collection for the time being. I'm buying a Laptop PC for PC gaming. I love my 360 and I can't wait for a lot of the titles but right nows starting to become an iffy time before more awesome releases come.
Like I said before. I hope all three companies personally do well and keep in the war. It'd be boring with only 2 consoles. I'd really like to see Nintendo Kick some serious *** but then again I also like Microsoft a lot. And even though I don't care much for Sony they do bring a good bit of exclusives to the table that I enjoy.
Wii will win
Wii will be awesome
Wii will Rock You!!!
I think that nintendo wii will come out on the top because they have ability to download a huge selection of games from the nes, snes and n64 and can play internet games and xbox 360 doesnt even have an built-in ability to play xbox game you have to buy the update to play xbox games and sony keep finding problems with the ps3 plus the nintendo wii is way smaller than xbox 360 and ps3
I think that microsoft with the X-box 360 wins. The controlers are my thing and it's confort. I haven't yet seen, or tried the PS3's batarang but holding a romote is kinda odd the way the revolution works... I'd say grafics and gameplay but that all depends on developers for the games for the systems. Go for a 360 and have tons o grafics, PS3 is games galor, and Revolution is the old school games.
kolia - you're behind. The PS3 controller is now the same shape as a Dual Shock pad from the PS2, so your hands will probably fit into it just as well.
As to the Revolution, now called the Wii, I suggest yu try it before making any judgements. :)
Wii is gonna win!:-D It will probably be a pretty simple system like all the earlier Nintendo systems. I think it's also supposed to use the Nintendo Wi-Fi and that's going to be awesome! I also love the name. I found out that it's named Wii to symbolize the connection between people all over the world, not just America or another small group of people.
Wii will be the victor!
I think itll be Wii or ps3 just for a few simple( but big) things.
the ps2 sold 96 million units... which triples the amount of xbox's sold, which brings me to saying, if they can do half of that, they'll come out on top (in my opinion, I think due to prices this generation all sales in general will take a big hit due to lower level income families not being able to afford it)
Plus ps3 has alot of backings (the more than likely dominant Blu-ray, great console only games, one hell of a system, etc.)
I know I know 360 has exclusive rights to GTA now... which sucks, but I dont think we'll see a huge loss in sales of ps3.
now if ps3 somehow doesn't destroy 360 I KNOW Wii will...
Wii will have : the lowest price, most innovative, most creative console out there which will draw people left and right to the console. This gen nintendo seems to be balancing out their games for this system which will bring long time nintendo lovers back home to buy.....
man, I definately think Wii will sell the best. So many people who don't like Nintendo that I know of are interested/considering buying the Wii. And the innovations Nintendo has, like in the DS, plus the games like Brain Training, are definately reaching out to non-gamers; my mom loves playing Sudoku on brain training, my neighbor's parents love Donkey Konga and such.
[QUOTE=Wings]More like 70 million, according to my sources. But meh, your point stands.
No, they don't. They just have exclusive rights to downloadable content for it. GTA IV launches for PS3 and 360 on the same day.
Anything I wrote was my horrible effort on trying to remember what i heard like a week ago... sorry I shoulda re-searched it
I only heard the gta thing while channel surfing, and musta heard the end of the conversation. im glad that rockstar didn't do such a thing
and the number I saw in another forum from another member, so I have no idea whose right or wrong...
oh yea and I just saw "assassains Creed" trailer for the ps3... definitly made me drool a little
I think that sony will probobly win though i really think it will be a much closer match this time around between the 3 major companies and i dont think any of the 3 consoles will fail. sony stole the analogue stick idea off nintendo. sony stole the rumble pack idea off nintendo. now sony stole the tilt functions of its new ps3 controller off nintendo. Im well aware that this is just the way of marketing and whatever sells will be copied or immulated in some way to make more money but to me i still see it as just plain wrong and i really hope sony lose. but yet id be lying if i said i wasnt going to buy a ps3 anyway so whatever. do as i say not as i do ok?
[quote=Winky]
Wii will have : the lowest price, most innovative, most creative console out there which will draw people left and right to the console. This gen nintendo seems to be balancing out their games for this system which will bring long time nintendo lovers back home to buy.....
What will also help Wii (this is what I recently found out), is that it will have a DVD player and I think something else (I don't know if it's a hard drive or what), but I'm kind of mad about it. Don't get me wrong, I love Wii and I want it to win, but I don't really like the DVD idea. That's what made the PS2 and XBox a big turnoff or me. Most people I know just bought it for the DVD and the Hard Drive. I don't want that to happen to Wii.
Anyway, I still think Wii will win, even if it wasn't going to have the DVD player.
PS3 no way they can't. xbox sux and I won't even talk about them
Wii is stupid because of the controller and that fact that nintendo is all like mario witch I do't really like.
PS3 is the best. They can play all the old stystem games (you don't have to download them). And they have the kool new blu-ray and I love ff games :D
I have a feeling it's gonna be Nintendo, not based on the games or hardware but just by looking at the long line at E3 as a microcosm of demand for the system. In the long haul I truly hope they get better 3rd party support. With the likes of Kojima recently stating that he wants to do games for the system, I think it's going to be interesting.
I also don't want to doubt Sony. They have not tanked a single console yet. Although the system is perhaps priced out of proportion, I feel like it's going to be like what the NeoGeo was in the 90's, except we are all now grown up with jobs and can afford the splurge.
Xbox360 - I think that will have a fair share of success, but almost like leftovers. I don't see a ravid following in the US, there's weak demand for it in Japan, and if you look at HAWT games like Assasin's Creed the xbox just gets a "me too" inclusion. They have the Halo thing going for them and that might be powerful, but I feel like that's only gonna go as far as Devil May Cry did for the PS2. You can only push a series so far before it becomes marginally interesting (like Castlevania games - we care, but we suspect the best is behind us already).
Anyway, time will tell. I was dead wrong a month ago thinking the Wii was gonna be crap, and I was totally wrong, so take this with a grain of salt. It's fun to speculate!
It's a race between Sony and Nintendo since they well both have FREE online play while xboxers would have to pay for Xbox live then Microsoft will lose money if they don't have xbox live for free.
i think that ultimately people will get tired of playing games the same way no matter what kinda graphics the game has and nintendo does c this and is taking the first step towards that! plus the 24 hour connection to the internet woudl add some really cool features to the games that support wi-fi! plus the posibilitys (while concidered gimics) of the controller combinations are infinite! plus they havent even unveiled all the secrets of the wii yet and they coudl easily win with what they have already!
I am pretty sure Sony will, alot of fans and alot of game titles. But I am not willing to pay the 600 dollars they are asking for it.
I can garanteeeeeeeeeeeee u guys sony will win, u wana know Y?
america isnt the only place in the world where people have money! in South Africa for example... The X-box will never be available, nor the 360! nintendo is no match for sony! thus, sony is the only real gaming consol, and its the case in many other countries!
In other words, sony has been more dedicated to the fans in the past, hence they are alllllllll we ever need!
i compleatly disagree sony will take a real dive here becuase A) they are selling at huge prices but they spend so much making them they lose alot of cash on every system (your better off buying a wii and a 360)
and second they tried to copy the wii with the tilt censor and ruind it its gonna be homosexual
i think the will will win because ninteno is the best
South Africa is a ridiculously small gaming market and has very little bearing on how consoles do worldwide.
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]Well, I'm in hopes for Microsoft also. The 360 is pretty cool, and a nice system at that, except for the core version. But anyways, I think Sony might win though, alot of titles and fans. But the price is what will probally make people change their mind. That's what happened to me anyways. I was going to get a Playstation 3 but once I figured out the price of it I just decided I would go with the 360. I am pretty impressed with it too. But to your original question...It's a tie to me between Microsoft and Sony. Although alot of people want to get the Revolution...hmm.[/COLOR][/FONT]
i think its gonna be a close run for both of them but whoever can come up with a great selling game title then ppl mite pull sum strings to buy the console to play the game....but in the end all we can do is sit bak and c who wins....meh, mite buy both......dont kno yet....we'll see
My point. No-one is that bothered about Nintendo any more - they aren't really that huge a competitor. Whether that will change this generation or not is a different story, but we won't see the effects until 2010 at least.
Besides, the 'war' really is between Sony and Microsoft anyway. Nintendo aren't going for that section of the market, as has already been said.
They aren't even next-gen :cookie:
That depends on what you classify as 'next-gen'.
[quote]Besides, the 'war' really is between Sony and Microsoft anyway. Nintendo aren't going for that section of the market, as has already been said.
That's just so they have something to fall back on in case they **** up. :)
My judgment on this topic is pretty poor. If it wasn't for my factual knowledge of the contrary, I would be pretty sure Nintendo was winning the console war. I hardly know any gamers here who own/like PS2s, compared to dozens with Cubes and Boxes. I've got like 8 people going with me to get a Wii launch night too, and have talked the only Sony fanboy I know out of getting a PS3.
Maybe it's just because of my awesome influence. :cool2:
Nah, you just live in an area free of generic brand-loyalists. Lucky bastard.
Oh, no, I know they own the market. It's just my personal opinion that people who don't like video games still won't like video games. I think Nintendo's going to do a **** fine job, I just think it won't be in the way they expect.
Edit: And also, when I said "here" I meant where I live, not VGC.
hate to say it but Wii looks like it may just win the console wars.
I think wii will come out top on sales, mainly becuase of its price compared to the PS3's
It doesn't mean next to nothing, it just doesn't mean everything. And Nintendo have proved they are still in the game, through DS stomping all over both GBA and PSP. Their strategy works.
I think that comparing the Wii to the PS3 and XBox 360 is sort like comparing apples and oranges. The Wii is just so incredibly different - it doesn't seem like it really competes with either on the same level because of this. Most people I've talked to are going to get a Wii and a PS3 or XBox (if they don't have one yet) not choose the Wii over the others. Like Nintendo said, they're doing things differently and this strategy doesn't even place them on the same playing feild as Sony or Microsoft.
Handheld strategy has no bearing on console stategy. That's why the PSP is failing - it's trying to bring console gaming, long, drawn-out sessions of play, to a handheld, and that's not what people want while on the move. With the DS you can start a game in a few seconds, play through, and have it actually mean something in-game if you only play for two minutes or two hours. With PSP games often you have to play for much longer to achieve a worthwhile effect.
[quote=Vampiro]exaggeration on my part, plz. But really, it doesn't mean much. Obviously support, games, and even the look of the console itself are more important. The GC is pocket change and its been dead for almost a year.
Console market. Handhelds are completely separate. They've always been on top there because they've proven time and time again that they can balance quality, quantity, and price. It's not the same for the console market though. But if they use their handheld strategy, yeah, that could completely change. We just have no idea if it will.
They're seperate pieces of a larger whole? Yes. They have their differences? Yes. Both don't revolve around having vast quantities of original, interesting and quality games? Not on your life.
Why has GBA been on top until now? Because it had the most support and the best games. Why is PS2 on top right now? For the exact same friggin' reasons. Both markets work exactly the same. The PC market even works identically, the Windows gaming platform is more successful than the Mac gaming platform because it has more support, and you can't get a much more different gaming environment to home consoles than PCs.
[quote]Handheld strategy has no bearing on console stategy. That's why the PSP is failing - it's trying to bring console gaming, long, drawn-out sessions of play, to a handheld, and that's not what people want while on the move.
Right, because I never played Pokémon for 8 hours at a time. And GBA and DS games like Golden Sun and Metroid Hunters aren't remotely as deep as SNES or N64 games (both home consoles). See above, the PSP is losing mainly because it's games are s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it, not because the developers forgot to put quicksave into them. It has less developer support and it's games aren't as interesting, this spells fail.
Nintendo's strategy for Wii involves having the most support and the most original games. This is what makes consoles win, and this is something that GC and the N64 never had from the beginning.
Oh, no, that's not what I mean. In Pokémon, or most other DS/GBA games you care to name, you can play them for ten minutes or hours on end and still feel like you accomplished something either way. With PSP games, you have to play them for ages to ever achieve anything - its games are more suited for home play.
"Nintendo is on topof handhelds because they were before, and shall remain thereafter. But they can never be on top of home consoles because they aren't right now"
Absolutely fantastic logic, really.
Oh, and hey, go look up SNES, Walkman and Macintosh.
[quote][FONT=Book Antiqua]They've proven that they don't deliver quality titles[/FONT]
Sure, maybe in Sony land. Last I checked Nintendo win more awards and high scores for their games than anyone else, and sell more than most to boot. Third party support has been Nintendo's problem for the last 2 generations, not their own.
[quote]... did you read what I said? They're on top because, well, just look at all the great games they're giving us. I can't even imagine naming them all. We're getting all of this at a really good price too. That's why they're on top and that's why they will probably remain on top for a while longer. The GC on the other hand, while having some good games and a good price, doesn't have enough good games to keep people interested. Hell, it doesn't have games in general anymore. All this while being up against a giant like Sony and a harsh challenger like Microsoft.
First you said they cant be on top because they are not on top right now.
Then you said it would be harder for them to get on top because they were on the bottem for so long it would be tougher to clime the ranks again.
You'r second state ment was a good point but the first one did make sence.
The point you'r making is good. Its like stoping a rolling boulder and pushing a new one up hill. Its hard but not impossible. Stoping sony from the PS2 wich was a strong system and raising Nintendo on top after the weak GC will be hard.
Still it is not impossible.
[quote]I won't deny that the GC has great games... but no where near as many as the PS2 for example. Third-party support (lack of) being the main reason. It's great if Nintendo wins awards for games like Metroid and Zelda... but we get about one, or if we're lucky, two per generation. That's not enough to sustain a console, which is why the GC isn't doing so hot.
This point is ok but you said
"They've proven that they don't deliver quality titles "
this would imply they simply dont at all.
But what you really wanted to say is that it wasnt enough to raise GC for the bottem. Which again is a very true state ment.
The GC had great/good game from time to time, just not enough to compete the 3rd party sony has.
There all Winners bc imma get the ps3 and wii also Bwhahaahahhaahahahahahh!!!!
[quote=Emperor Vampiro]I won't deny that the GC has great games... but no where near as many as the PS2 for example. Third-party support (lack of) being the main reason. It's great if Nintendo wins awards for games like Metroid and Zelda... but we get about one, or if we're lucky, two per generation. That's not enough to sustain a console, which is why the GC isn't doing so hot.
Whether all of this is Nintendo fault or not, I don't really care. It's just that they don't have it, and that's a shame.
I never said PS2 has less third party support. In fact, I noted that GC has a lack of it, so I don't know why you're repeating what I said. As for one or two a generation, tell that to my 40 strong AAA library.
You're implying that because Nintendo don't have third party support now that they won't ever, because their lack of third party support right now is your sole reasoning for suggestiong that Wii won't get it. The fact that you don't care why Nintendo doesn't have third party support is testament to how much you don't know. If you care enough to have an opinion on how well these systems will do then you care enough to know how last generation happened. This is ignorance dressed up as apathy.
This round will be between Microsoft and Nintendo. Sony already sealed their fate.
I'm pulling for the Phantom. Never give up!!
Somebody made that joke already, huh?
I don\'t know. I just have a hunch Wii will win. I know I don\'t have stats, etc. etc. but its just intuition.
All of them will win. Heck the existance of this thread just proves that. Each one of them have fans who are so hard core that they would actually argue amongst each other. Neaither one of these companies have a console that exactly reflects another's. Each console has it's own pros and it's own cons.
Take the wii for example,
Pros: it is cheap and has great third party support.
Cons: The graphics are not exactly up to par with the 360 and no where near the realm of the PS3. The company is investing it's own future in a technology that they have yet to see if everyone will actually like or be able to adjust too. Nintendo has a reather kiddie reputation.
The Xbox360;
Pros: The console has been out for some time now and is showing very nice sell's. The 360 has a large amount of hype tied to there titles such as gears of war and halo 3. The xbox 360 has a equal amount of both third-party and first party support. The xbox has a established online community and a repected amount of fans.
Cons: The 360 is rather expensive and the $250 package plan is rather worthless compared to the $350 plan. The xbox360 is only broadband campatable, so dial up user's can't play online or download content. The 360 is regarded as having only a large amount of violent titles, sport games and FPS's as apposed to rpg or adventure titles.
Now the Playstation 3:
Pro's: the graphics are far beyond that of anything to date. The Playstation 3 has three generations of backwards compatability.
The playstation three has major first party titles such as final fantasy, RE, metal gear solid and grand theft auto. You will be able to watch movies on this console.
Con's: The playstation 3 is extremely expensive, costing asmuch as most gaming pc's. The playstation 3 will require a HDTV to play, most U.S gamers do not have one of these yet. The Playstation 3 will have almost no third party titles. The playstation 3 will be using Blueray disc, blueray is regarded as a touchy format, as most people in the entertainment industrie perfer HDDVD.
----------------
Sadly enough I know a lot of people who are going to buy all three. This just reminds me of what they said about the last generation of gaming. In the end, all was the same. I say They all won the battle, now I am curious which is going to take the most money from my wallet.
Yes, because there are exactly 33% of supporters for each machine.
Nokia will win this console war hands down. The N-Gage will transform into the N-Gagewii-60 and devour whats left of the gaming world as we know it. From there Nokia will take over hospitals where it will abuse small infants no larger than arm.
This is all
The rev will dominate. It's the most innavative of them all. The controller beats anything Microsoft has given us, and the gameplay will demolish anything the PS3 has to offer.
I honestly don't think the Nintendo Wii will "dominate". The PS3 will be awfully close to the 360 (in sales), but I honestly think the 360 will reign on top in this "console war". Nintendo is taking a huge risk and no one knows whether or not it'll work until the final product is released. The 360 had a whole year of a headstart and is looking to be in great form. With games like Gears of War, Huxley and other major games that'll warrant Xbox Live, Microsoft looks to be in top form. That said, Xbox Live will continue to grow as a gaming community and be very very successful.
Sony supports Blu-Ray which will be more succesful over the HD-DVD. Blu-Ray already has tons of support and PS3 should do good to the Blu-Ray like the PS2 did to the DVD. Online though, the 360 will reign.
Nintendo Wii, on the other hand aims to all gamers. I'm guessing that this will sell as well as the Gamecube did, not any better. Sure people can accept the innovation, but when they run out of ideas what kind of games are they going to make? They definitely need to include "wii"-fi or something to this thing.
[quote=Roinkz]Sure people can accept the innovation, but when they run out of ideas what kind of games are they going to make?
...what? They've run out of ideas for PS3 and 360, why aren't you worried for those too? PS3 and 360 = no new ideas, Wii = new ideas. How can you possibly be more worried about Wii not doing anything new?
Because it's easy to run out of ideas on such a system. They'll eventually be just as recycled as PS3 and 360 games, and eventually being 2 years max.
It doesn't really matter that the PS3 and 360 are running out of ideas for games, they're working for them just fine. The games don't revolve around the controller as much as it does for the Nintendo Wii. Mainly online games and it doesn't matter if the ideas get stale because the online users will want to build up stats and etc. But for the Wii, with no online play, the main premise is the controller. IF the games kill the controller, then there's nothing to the system because it's supposed to be based off innovation.
[COLOR="Yellow"]I'm not concerned about the PS3 and Xbox 360 running out of ideas because they aren't. The PS3 has the Eye Toy and it's motion sensing controller for example, which aren't new ideas but should provide with unique gameplay possibilities nonetheless.
And even if 70% of future titles are sequels or recycled ideas, it doesn't matter as long as a good portion of those games are good. Great games will keep fueling this industry and make it better in the future, not completely renewing the way we play.[/COLOR]
[quote=Roinkz]Because it's easy to run out of ideas on such a system. They'll eventually be just as recycled as PS3 and 360 games, and eventually being 2 years max.
It doesn't really matter that the PS3 and 360 are running out of ideas for games, they're working for them just fine. The games don't revolve around the controller as much as it does for the Nintendo Wii. Mainly online games and it doesn't matter if the ideas get stale because the online users will want to build up stats and etc. But for the Wii, with no online play, the main premise is the controller. IF the games kill the controller, then there's nothing to the system because it's supposed to be based off innovation.
I'm frankly amazed at how much you don't know and how little sense you make.
[quote=Roinkz]Sony supports Blu-Ray which will be more succesful over the HD-DVD. Blu-Ray already has tons of support and PS3 should do good to the Blu-Ray like the PS2 did to the DVD.
...What? Blu-Ray is expensive and cumbersome, and the fact that the standalone players themselves cost over £500 right now isn't too much of a help to get them to the consumers.
Also, I was positive more people were supporting HD-DVD.
HD-DVD performs better than Blu-Ray right now, and is much cheaper. Consumers will pick HD-DVD if they don't go for Digital Delivery first.
Calling him stupid is a little harsh. It sounds like he just didn't know.
It's not really a case of knowing, it's just common sense.
I believe the phrase is "under a rock."
No. It's 'in a cave'.
N00b.
I just kind of figured that you would get all the information about something before taking a stance on it. Especially since Wii not having online play seemed to be one of the main points of your arguement.
Don't mean to bump, but I like how I was right about Blu-Ray winning.
Who the fuck are you?
brownoystercult
Must suck having to explain yourself 100 times.
[quote=Grenade Grasshopper;872324]Must suck having to explain yourself 100 times.
Come to think of it, who are you?
quiet, speedy.
[quote=Speedfreak;872362]Come to think of it, who are you?are you sure you aren't an old man? the symptoms are there
- grouchy
- hates everything
- alzheimer's
- incontinent
Seriously, never seen the name before the last couple of days. Name change? Posting outside of a board I don't frequent? I just can't keep up with you hip internet socialites!
Sapphire Rose.
Still probably doesn't clear it up.
I remember the name, actually. Thought they left ages ago.
If only everyone were as consistent as us.
you're not consistent. Who's this Shade kid? Is he related to that Shade32 guy or something?
for some reason when i registered i thought it would be like gamefaqs and there would already be a 'shade' registered and a lot of others. tooootally misjudged this forum
Yeah, GameFAQs is pretty overloaded with users. It's one of the reasons why I still post here. You can post in a thread on those boards, and when you check for the thread the next day, it's on page 43 or some such nonsense. Also, unless you post a million messages a day, no one knows you. There's no time to have decent arguments on there.
i think sony
lol
i tihnk nintendoe lolz
Ninty will win.
Ninty always win.
Except when they lost. Unless that's a comment about their money-making abilities, in which case it's pretty accurate.
That's the wishes of a yet-ninty-fanboy.
ps3 sony
Oh God the fail
Even though this thread is ancient, I think it's interesting predicting the results at this point.
Obviously, from a business standpoint, Nintendo is dominating this console war, and will continue to dominate. I think they're already the obvious winner.
But, in my opinion, the true "winner" of a console war is not the one with the most sales, but the one who truly pleases gamers more than any other system, and the one where people can look back and say, "____ was the best system during _____."
Honestly, I'd say 360 is easily winning that right now. And if things continue exactly how they've been, 360 will come out on top. However, I actually won't be surprised if PS3, at this point, turns the tide.
Now, this isn't from my bias towards the PS3, and when it was released, I thought it was a terrible system and wouldn't even stand a chance at the already successful 360. But, people are starting to develop for the PS3. It certainly has way more exclusives this year than 360, and let's face it, is just much more technically powerful. Not only that, but a lot of the mainstream is starting to catch onto it. Most 360 owners I know now wish they could switch to PS3, and the fact that it has Blu-Ray is a big system seller.
But, as always, the price stands in the way. That's the one thing that I think is really holding the PS3 back. I believe that, IF the PS3 were able to get a $100 price drop, it would definitely have a standing chance at actually prevailing over 360 in the year to come. Like it or not, the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. It has Blu-Ray. It has free internet. It's starting to bring in exclusives. There's a reason the PS3 costs more, and that's its downfall right now. It's just too much. But I really do think it has a strong chance against the 360 when they're priced evenly, even if 360 does, say, a $50 price drop.
Anyway, that's just MY opinion. I personally think both PS3 and 360 are fantastic consoles, and everyone who can should get both. ;|
Obviously the company that is "pleasing the most gamers" is also the one with the largest install base. Unless by "gamers" you mean people who refer to themselves as "gamers", which is a pretty arbitrary and pointless metric.
Hell, either way you'd be wrong, DS is the clear winner in both categories.
:cool:
Okay. In MY opinion, the winner of a console war would be the system that pleases the most "hardcore" gamers, like the nerdy fags that post on message boards.
US.
...And in that regard, Wii is failing miserably.
[quote=maian;927405]
...And in that regard, Wii is failing miserably.
Yeah it is.
But there's 4 major titles coming this spring that I'm really looking forward to.
In fairness, "hardcore gamers" will spend a lot of time playing shitty games because they haven't finished it or because there's a big list of stuff to do attached to it. They might spend thousands of hours on World of Warcraft without ever realising that there's probably something better that they could do with their time.
I figure you should either let the sales figures speak for theselves or base it how much you like it. I don't see what's so special about being the most popular with a bunch of supposed elite consumers when those people will still play absolute shovelware like Too Human, Dead Space or Sonic Unleashed. The difference is it's expensive shovelware, I suppose. If what you say is true, Vamp, at least "casuals" have the taste to get bored of shit games after a month.
Most hardcore games that sell big are generally pretty great (except for force unleashed.) The big sellers on the Wii are actually ****. There's a difference there and that's the reason the play time is so low, comparative to the amount of time hardcore gamers put into their games. Sales figures really mean **** unless you're Nintendo or Sony or MS
As for what I said you can get the info from pretty much any gaming site which is taken from that Nintendo Wii channel.
I'd argue that Wii Sports, Dead Space and The Force Unleashed are all about as shallow as eachother, but the latter two are also more complicated (this isn't a contradiction). None of them have the depth of even Super Mario Bros 3, Wii sports certainly doesn't have its responsive or intuitive controls and the hardcore games are seriously lacking in the enemy and level design areas.
And when The Force Unleashed goes on to sell 5.7 million copies I stop giving a s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it about what the average "hardcore gamer" thinks. Right now the only difference that I can see is one of experience, Wii gamers don't have the video game skills and confidence to try 360/PS3 games. Both groups together will still buy complete garbage en masse, however.
So what's the sense in going by the satisfaction of hardcore gamers if their taste in games is entirely different to but equally abysmal as casual gamers? Just because they've played games for longer it doesn't mean they actually know any better. If you think about it it could actually mean they have worse taste in some cases, because they've gotten so used the various forms of ridiculous game design over the years that they don't even notice when it's stupid anymore. Show a casual gamer Crisis Core and they'll ask why the hell the game revolves around a slot machine that has no relevence to anything, show it to a hardcore gamer and they'll write insanity like [URL="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21914"]this.[/URL]
If your criteria for a winner has nothing to do with sales, install base or some other concrete fact then it should be how many many games it has that you like, not how popular you think it is with a vaguely defined group that for some reason you deem to be more important than everyone else.
only read the last line. crisis core sucks.
So you see my point right? Hardcore gamers don't know jack.
DS ftw, nuff said.
Just to be a cock I'm gonna say Epic. Gears of War 2 is a triumph.
So where do you draw the line? Were all the people that bought The Force Unleashed fanboys?
Have to say I can't agree that article about Crisis Core is insanity, I actually think its well put. Crisis Core may not have been a great game, quite redundant and difficult to the point it'd make a lot of people turn it off, but the author of the article made a great point about story lines in video games and the logical break downs in between instances of game play and story. He failed to mention that the missions themselves were the largest continuity breaker of the game itself but he made a valid point none-the-less. More so, I think that its this talk about AI scripts and level design that are picked to the bone and bleached in the sun light. Someone's gotta do it, yeah, but it seems that many try to examine things much too narrowly, to a fault.
tl;dr: Enjoy your **** games Speed.
[quote=S
5 million people didn't buy force unleashed because they were fanboys. Five million people bought it because it's star wars and was hyped to hell and back. It was a guaranteed sell to all segments of the market.
Then what's your point? How is that any different to casuals buying a Wii because it was hyped to hell and back?
The randomness is used to modify game play, meaning the game isn't completely controllable by the user, which is a fine element to be introduced into a game as long as its not balance breaking or ridiculously debilitating. The experience system that it is laid over, making it seemingly "random", was a way to innovate a new system for at least one particular game. And the cut scenes, which were few and far between, were mostly all interesting. Equally, how the DMW was tied in towards the end was a good addition; but you'd have to play the game to see how they executed that. It was a nice touch, nothing ground breaking and certainly not perfect, but an idea that is rarely sought after. It is not often that you have a real time cut scene within a battle in an RPG-type game, and CC made a good effort. How many games utilize systems in which there is no link between game play and storyline? All in all, it did its job of immersal quite well.
[quote=S
They also buy when they see tens of hundreds of good reviews on sites like newegg, gamespot etc.
That's hype. Though most moms don't usually go to gamespot.
they can goto many gaming sites to see reviews & scores, it's not limited to just gamespot & newegg.
I've never heard of a mom on gametrailers, ign or 1up. If anything they usually ask the store employees for recommendations. I mean, if they relied on those sites to get opinions Imagine and Petz wouldn't've sold through the roof.
my mom just bought whatever game i told her to get me
if it was rated higher than the age i was i'd just say 'its okay you're only shooting aliens' and it seemed to placate her
My mom didn't give a ****. Pretty much had no idea what a video game was and figured it wouldn't affect me in a negative way because I knew better.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;928371]You're the one that brought up force unleashed. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with just the hardcore segment. As for Wii games, some woman's fitness game just sold a ton of copies that I've never heard of. People buy wii games based on what the box looks like.
And it's no different. Hyped products sell. That's why it's hype. But there's a difference between Imagine selling millions of copies and Fallout selling millions of copies.
My point was that the masses buy garbage, regardless of their experience with videogames. They will simply buy different types of garbage. You started excusing the success of particular games with "fanboyism" to assert that hardcore gamers know better most of the time.
I claim your arguement to be bullshit on the grounds that the crux of your arguement, fanboyism, is arbitrary and undefined, and can be whipped out whenever an exception/counterpoint is brought to your attention.
I still play Final Fantasy's My Life as a King to pass the time occasionally. It's kinda like my new Tetris, only now it's impossible to die.
and jesus christ Speedy, let people see what they want to see. These essays of yours are only making the people you're trying to persuade think you're full of yourself.
Yeah I know, but grinding them into the ground is the closest thing to an intelligent conversation around here. It's kind of like when you can't be bothered to even humour the other guy on Street Fighter, so you anihilate him hoping the next dude will be better.
speedfreak are you getting SFIV
if so i wanna fight you
Nah I actually suck at Street Fighter, it was just an analogy.
I play Gears and TF2 mostly.
weren't you a pretty big CVS2 player back in your days at EA
I held my own against people obviously more experienced but I never delved into SFs arcane mechanics. Pretty much played it like SFII Turbo.
what's arcane about street fighter broski
Combos, fakes, footsie, cancel frames, you know, all that crap. Can't be bothered to learn it. It's arcane because these mechanics aren't readily apparant, unlike something Unreal Tournament is where if you watch a guy playing well it's because he's particularly good at aiming, not because he knows this entire glossary of weird terminology.
That and actual kung fu is simpler and more straightforward than Street Fighter.
And casual games aren't built for mass-market appeal? Wasn't that the entire point behind casual gaming?
didn't mean mass market. I don't know what I meant. force unleashed was meant for everbody in mind since a hardcore gamer wouldn't buy something like jordanna fitness guru aerobics.
Yeah, but I'm just as likely to not buy either, because they both suck. In fact I'd probably sooner buy Wii Fit than The Force Unleashed. That's my point, why go by the average hardcore gamer when they still buy crap? What's so important about them that make them a better metric for judging a winner?
My parents have officially played my Wii more than I have as of yesturday...wow.
You were praising it because it hasn't been done before, the example I gave is also something that hasn't been done before, but is still bad. Ergo, just because it hasn't been done before it doesn't mean it's good.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you ask "what if it were executed correctly?". What if story and rules were unified much better? That'd be great, fantastic even. But it's been done before and very often doesn't get noticed. Or are you asking what if the slot machine with cutscenes was done correctly? Because that's an irrelevent question, it's like asking "what if I accidentally drove of a cliff correctly?", you wouldn't want to do it at all because it's stupid and illogical.
Huhuh. He said "brong."
whahahooo-she really ripped you a new one, Prince.
reveloution was suppossed to be last gen so they lost even though im married to nintendo i still have affairs with sega systems i think sega will win next gen cause they comin back