MY ARGUMENT: The real battle is between PS3 and 360, Wii is not included

There will be overlaps among their userbases, but Nintendo's focus is very directed and different from the other 2 guys. A large portion of their users (i.e., people who appreciate Wii games' simplicity) will likely be different from the rest. Hit Wii games will probably have unique presentation and interaction from the "usuals". Even in the online area, Mii is an early peek at how different/fun it can be from XBL.

Sony and MS are more head-on, from target audience to disc format to online vision.

I think that they only arent try to get on of types of the market, namely the gfx fanatics, they are doing it in a diferent way (better or worse time will tell). That is proven if you see the games coming out many are the "same" of PS3/360 games (eg Madden, Resident Evil, CoD3...) just reworked for Wii.

Althought I agree tha the competition between S/MS are much more direct and intense.
 
imo the big problem with the Wii is going to be it's legs, can this thing really keep selling in 2-3 years? At some point the GFX are really going to pale in comparison and it will be interesting to see what happens.

Also, the question of software sales, will these casual gamers buy alot of games, or will Wii be a hard place to sell 3rd party games? Hardcore gamers traditionally by a ton more games than the demographic that N is targeting, it will be interesting to see how the attach rates compare after a year or two, and as a result, how much 3rd party support they get.
 
Does anybody really expect the Wii to be selling in significant numbers in the 2009 Holiday season?

beaten by Scoob above

Also, here's a question.. does anybody know of a poll that is running that shows how many of the Wii purchasers have already bought a 360? I know this is an enthusiast site, but it seems like every single person who has a Wii also has a 360 (and some people have a PS3 as well).

If that's the case, then the market that Nintendo is trying to attract with it's lack of emphasis on graphics and it's removal from the living room and off of HDTVs isn't the market that has made the purchases yet.

So far, nearly every review (even the "positive" ones) mention how inferior the Wii looks compared to their PS3 or 360, but it's fun and the wife and kids really like it.

Essentially "Don't bash the console, it's cheap and fun and I can play GoW or Resistance if I want great graphics"

I think it could be a problem next holiday season when the families that have the ability to only purchase one console are out making their decisions, and I think that problem will only get larger as the Wii's lifespan continues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anybody really expect the Wii to be selling in significant numbers in the 2009 Holiday season?

Yes. By then the price will be so low that it'll be hitting yet another unique market. It'll then be able to really capture the ability for EVERYONE to have it. Hell, it'll be the price of its game by that point.
 
I share similar sentiments. Most reviews / impression we have seen are of people saying how their "kids" enjoyed the game or how "guests" came and had tons of fun. Apart from kids , how long before people say ... my guests enjoyed it ..but now that I am playing it ...I dont find it as much fun. My experience with Wii so far has been mixed bag. I know at this time I have tried Golf for a short while , but I am absolutely sure I am not gonna stand in my house and keep swinging the controller all that time ;)

Basically after the initial excitement has died , will Wii provide depth with its control scheme , which is its USP.

For kids they can keep playing same Wii Sports forever ;)
 
Agree that there will be crossing-over of some "standard" console/arcade games to complete their library. They may not represent the initial draw/attraction for the console (Overlap always happens since people/marketing is not pure math).

Because Wii's unique value appeals the most to casual/non-gamers, and their message focus on fun, they will likely lose some portion of gamers looking solely for power and "technical" games... but gain more casual/new players as well as retain the remaining core gamers.

It's a good thing... really.

EDIT:
I share similar sentiments. Most reviews / impression we have seen are of people saying how their "kids" enjoyed the game or how "guests" came and had tons of fun. Apart from kids , how long before people say ... my guests enjoyed it ..but now that I am playing it ...I dont find it as much fun. My experience with Wii so far has been mixed bag. I know at this time I have tried Golf for a short while , but I am absolutely sure I am not gonna stand in my house and keep swinging the controller all that time

Basically after the initial excitement has died , will Wii provide depth with its control scheme , which is its USP.

For kids they can keep playing same Wii Sports forever

That's true. Wii will appeal to families with young kids.

The way I see it... besides lowering in price point, Wii's game library will evolve (in a different way from the other 2). It also seems to fill in the void of party gaming (i.e., group gaming within the house as opposed to solitaire/XBL style gaming). In a hand-waving fashion, people who're doing Karaoke now will still do karaoke 2-3 years after Wii is launched. So they will keep playing as long as the Wii games hit the mark. Wii offers "simplification" and encourages "expression".

On another dimension, I really look forward to follow up move for Mii. They seem to grasp the people element of online ventures rather well (People want to be unique).

Besides, if it's cheaper/cheap to make Wii games... we may see more experiments along the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anybody really expect the Wii to be selling in significant numbers in the 2009 Holiday season?

Does it even matter? They make money off each console sold and are selling like crazy. If they can get around 25mil with a good attach rate, I'd say it's pretty successful. And for it being "low tech" and profitable from day one, they are more inclined to have a Wii2 out well before the Xbox3 or PS4.
 
Does anyone here actually know Nintendo's roadmap for the Wii,how it fit's into the grand scheme for them,how they will measure it's success or failure,how much market share they expect of the Wii etc? Just curious,because some of you talk like you actually work for Nintendo and know it goals and how it measures success.
I have my theories but that's all they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does it even matter? They make money off each console sold and are selling like crazy. If they can get around 25mil with a good attach rate, I'd say it's pretty successful. And for it being "low tech" and profitable from day one, they are more inclined to have a Wii2 out well before the Xbox3 or PS4.

I'd say it matters in terms of this discussion. Whether this discussion actually matters is another point up for debate.

Making money off of each console is really just a side issue, the main point is that they are going to have to sell console numbers rarely seen in the past if the lifespan of the console is going to be so short.

You say that they are selling like crazy, but are they? They're supply-limited right now, and we've seen reports that even with all the fuss, the 360 is actually the console that is selling the most units right now.

The Wii would have to vastly exceed 360 sales at some point in the future in order to make up for all the sales the 360 has already generated.

When exactly do you see that happening?
 
Does anybody really expect the Wii to be selling in significant numbers in the 2009 Holiday season?

I even expect PS2 to be selling in significant numbers.

If they keep good/innovative/new markets games coming, not just gaming software (eg didatic "games"), lower the price enought and/or upgrade the console (no gaming features, like the software and the flash memory...) I think they will be selling very well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone here actually know Nintendo's roadmap for the Wii,how it fit's into the grand scheme for them,how they will measure it's success or failure,how much market share they expect of the Wii etc? Just curious,because some of you talk like you actually work for Nintendo and know it goals and how it measures success.
I have my theories but that's all they are.

Not me ! but you don't need those targets for discussion here :p
If non-gamer friends are coming to me to ask about Wii, it means something.

OOXX...
Martha
 
Not me ! but you don't need those targets for discussion here :p
If non-gamer friends are coming to me to ask about Wii, it means something.

OOXX...
Martha


I'm pretty sure the Wii will do better than the GC,but I think Nintendo worries more about market share and dominance in the handheld space than it does in the home console space. Now before anyone jumps on me,I'm sure Nintendo would like more market share from the Wii but considering how much more lucrative the handheld space can be, they probably worry more about quality and the image their software projects in the home console space and see the handheld space as thier greater revenue generator.
Nintendo uses it's home console to make and sell it's image, and uses it's handheld to make it's money IMO.(this is a simplified generalization so don't take it too literally)
 
What will probably happen is they will re-design the Wii in a couple of years.

At the very least, cosmetic like special colors and different form factor. They could even tweak the wands and still keep software compatibility.

Or they will have improved silicon (but maybe still nowhere comparable to the PS3 and X360) with new games needed.

They'll find ways to stoke sales.
 
I do not see why the 360 and PS3 cannot co-exist. This thread presents the situation as if one will succeed and the other will fail, which I simply do not see happening. Both companies will have their share of exclusive titles (Halo3, GoW, etc for 360 and Resistance, Heavenly Sword, etc for PS3).

As long as both systems have a good install base (which they will), developers will not have a problem (well they might, but they'll do it anyway) developing for them both. It reminds me of the early days of the API wars on the PC. Developers would develop for Glide and in a few cases, RRedline and then D3D. They didn't limit themselves to only one API because they knew that not one hardware was totally dominant and so they didn't want to isolate people.

Eventually D3D became standard and everyone supported it, so they only had to develop for that, but in the early days this wasn't the case. Just as they would develop for multiple APIs, so console software developers will develop for both systems. If they don't, they will end up isolating millions of people. Not a smart business move.

-Dave

Unfortunately its not as simple as that. They can co-exist but not in the same sense as other products like TVs or mp3 players etc. There are 2 main participators, that produce differentiated products, which products involve other industries in them which are fragmented and varied.
The console gaming industry specifically also faces continuous increase in development costs and on top of that there are also the hardware costs.

Profitability is taking shrinking pressures especially of the main participators like Sony and MS who have to update all sorts of things like hardware, libraries, and other features every 5 years. They basically start all over from the beginning. A single mistake may prove fatal for the future of their product. And usually the more succesful they are with the current product the better the chances for the future of not going under the carpet.

So every time they release the next product the competition is extremely fierce trying to regenerate sales and gain as much market share as possible to ensure their security in an otherwise complicated industry.

Developers may have the ability to move from one support to the other, but the hardware producers cant get them back once they lose them. They move on a very thin line.

So in case Sony faces the challenges lets say MS faced with the XBOX someone may think no problem Sony will be ok. But thats a false observation. There are more chances they will go downhill in the future. Its as false as someone thinking low sales for Nintendo mean it failed.

So if you ask me who lost in the previous gen, well, the loser is Sega with the DC. It started great, it had superb games but died.

Nintendo and XBOX are either winners either losers according to how you see things. If you judge the XBOX as a whole it did great. MS managed to build a strong brand name due to their strong financial power. They steadilly also built a very interesting library of games which are bound for the 360 and previous owners will seek for them. No one else would have been able to enter the market and manage to persistently keep alive their product until it turned into a beast.

On the other hand if it wasnt for MS ability to fund a non-profitable, initially bad performing product it would have sunk.

Nintendo did the "worst" of all the three. Well, kind of. They managed to make profit despite that they sold even less than MS. And they are lucky that they are selling a product thats not competing the big two. If they were trying to compete them directly, despite last years profit, their performance in last gen simply didnt build the right conditions.

The only clear winner last gen was Sony. They succedded with the PS2 in both relative and absolute numbers like profit, market share and user base, they built the right conditions to make PS3 succesful. Now if they manage to exploit them well enough to ensure their current and future security is left to be seen.

Btw: by the time I am writing this post I am dizzy and lack concentration. So if I dont make sense or something seems strange in my post forgive me
 
How much do you guys figure a good handheld game is too make? I really don't know for sure but I'll guess at like $1-2 million.How about a console game for the Wii around $8 -10 million?
So in terms of development costs you have a ratio of console to handheld being around 4 or 5:1 .
Handheld games sell for about $35 vs $50 for the home console game. That's a ratio of home console to handheld of about 1.45:1(I'm guessing as I'm not good with doing ratios).So it's clear that the handheld games have a much much much better profit margin compared to home console games.Plus the price of handheld games are closer to an impluse buy price meaning they will likely sell greater numbers. I think Nintendo understands business just fine.
 
Besides, if it's cheaper/cheap to make Wii games... we may see more experiments along the way.

It's only cheaper if the expectations for it are lower. It's cheaper to make Wii Sports than Gears of War, but making a crappy, PS2-look game like some of the Japanese Mahjongs and party games that have graced the Xbox 360 with its presence should not be any more expensive than the typical Wii game. A simple test-this-wacky-idea game, e.g. with some control scheme gimmick, or a TV show license (like the aforementioned Buzz) should be easier, if anything, to do with something like XNA than on the Wii.

Wii will continue to get cheap ports as long as there is still development for the current (is it already last? or previous) gen. Once publishers start dropping their PS2 SKUs, justifying the effort to downgrade the assets and split the levels for the Wii versions will become harder - especially if the Wii demographics turns out to consist of 20% hardcore Zelda fans, 20% hardcore Mario fans and 60% occasional Wii Golfers/Bowlers (is that a word?).

And if you think third party developers doing "Wii too" ports of their games don't matter... remember how well it worked out for GCN last time around.
 
Hey london-boy, looks like you're doing great in your marketing classes. :p

:D Thanks! Believe me you guys are lucky you have me here now when i'm still more or less neutral... One day i'll be working in marketing for one of these companies and you'll get PR talk in favour of whatever company it is on here! :LOL: kidding...
 
:D Thanks! Believe me you guys are lucky you have me here now when i'm still more or less neutral... One day i'll be working in marketing for one of these companies and you'll get PR talk in favour of whatever company it is on here! :LOL: kidding...

Actually you ll be our insider. Leave the PR talk for others ;)
 
Actually you ll be our insider. Leave the PR talk for others ;)

Hehe but my "info" will be totally biased PR talk coated in techie stuff to make it sound real, that's the most dangerous! I'll be the new Deadmeat! :p

Anyway, thanks guys for the rep! It's not often that i get so much rep from one post! :D
 
Back
Top