So, from where I'm sitting, it seems you're saying that Sony is ultimately in trouble if they continue with these sales, as they are more likely to lose more exclusive 3rd party content. I agree with this - losing exclusive 3rd party content is never good, especially for publicities sake. I however, do not believe, that your argument and comparison of Nintendo franchises and Sony 1st/2nd party is anything more than your humble opinion, especially when considering that Nintendo practically appealed to a much smaller market (I'll restrain from calling it niche though) last generation.
....................................
If what you say turns out to be true (that Sony's continues to lose all their exclusive 3rd party content), I would still buy the PlayStation platform thanks to those 1st/2nd party games. Perhaps this would have been different 8 years ago when the Sony brand had little other than 3rd party games to offer. The times have changed though and as archangelmorph put it, Sony has an impressive fleet of defining games in many genres: From adventure, racing, sci-fi racing, action, jump'n run to fun games as well.
So Natoma, lets just let this "Nintendo's franchises have stood the test of time better than x or y" argument. It's also a bit of an unfair argument, Nintendo after all has been around far longer and have had a platform to its own practically selling nothing but their own IP. They make excellent games - lets just leave it at that, mkay?
Cheers Phil
First, I made that comparison as one who owned a PS1 and PS2 and counts the Wipeout series, Toshinden, Jumping Jack Flash, and Warhawk among my favorite titles of all time. Second, Nintendo's 1st party franchises have been the bedrock of their consoles since the NES days. In comparison, the strength of the PS1 and PS2 were its 3rd party titles. It's even worse for the Xbox in terms of 1st party to 3rd party quality ratio.
If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for Nintendo consoles, they will by and large be Nintendo franchises. If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for Sony consoles, they will by and large be 3rd party. If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for MS consoles, they will DEFINITELY be 3rd party, save for Halo.
That's all I was stating. This isn't about opinion or fan bias, but merely what has occurred to date.
Even though Wii is selling extremely hot at the moment, I'm not convinced they're selling far beyond their usual audience - and perhaps a large share of their handheld market. The question is: With all the great sales their enjoying with Wii at the moment - are they taking away sales of the PlayStation (and somewhat the Xbox) platform? It's my opinion that they are not. It's not that players who have enjoyed games like GTA, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, ICO (all best sellers) suddenly forget about all those games and only want a Wii with Mario and Zelda.
If anything, I think Wii is that perfect 2nd console. It's cheap, easy and fun. The perfect party entertainment if you want. Is it an alternative? As one of those PlayStation supporters, I can tell you, to me, it isn't. I will be getting a Wii though, for the reasons above, no doubt. That still doesn't make me anymore less of a Sony supporter though. Does that make Wii sales any less impressive? No. Does it make Wii less of a success? No. Does it mean Wii is better off than the PlayStation platform? IMO not comparable, as it would be like comparing a handheld with a console - the difference being a large price difference and different market appeal.
This begs the question though Phil. How is it that the Gamecube didn't sell in these numbers? Surely there were tens of millions of Nintendo fans who could've purchased the system at the same pace. Quite frankly, the Wii is the first Nintendo console to reverse the trend of declining sales from one generation to another, ever. From NES --> Gamecube, it was a downward spiral.
If Nintendo wasn't pulling in new audiences, whether they be completely new gamers or gamers who normally wouldn't have considered a Nintendo console, then there's no doubt in my mind that the Wii would be seeing sales declining yet again.
As for taking away sales form the PS and Xbox platforms, nothing other than price is doing that. I want to play Ico and GTA and Halo and DMC, et al. But not at $400+.
However, you have the Wii that sells for $250, has an innovative controller, has tremendous mindshare in the market, and has some pretty good games sitting pretty amongst the shovelware.
Until the 360 and PS3 significantly drop their prices, this trend will simply continue. I said it in another thread as well:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=969964#post969964
Natoma said:
In the end there were some responses that directly addressed the author's comments, but it didn't seem like many did.
Personally, I think the Wii is a confluence of two things.
1) Innovative controller and design
2) Price
If the Wii had enough processing power to place it at the level of a 360 or PS3, it wouldn't be selling like it is even with the innovative controller and design because the price would have to match the technology.
In short, I don't think the early stages of this generation is a repudiation of "hardcore" gaming per se. I think it's a repudiation of $300+ gaming. The additional design and controller of the Wii accelerated the desire and sales for that console, but in the end I believe price is the primary driver.
When the 360 Premium drops below $300, then I think sales will skyrocket there. Not only will the library be mature, but it will be in the price range that many consider acceptable for a gaming console.
Sony otoh will have a difficult time pricing the $600 PS3 in half, anytime soon. Frankly I'm worried about the PS3's fate as no console has competed well at those prices. See 3DO and Neo Geo for example.
In the end, if the Wii does end up dominating this generation, it will temper the race to see who can come up with the most boundary-pushing technology and cram it into a tiny box. I think that it may very well return us to the days when a console was just a console, and not an attempt at being the media-processing hub of the digital living room, i.e. the dream of Sony and Microsoft.
Which philosophy is good for the gaming market is anyone's guess at this stage of the game.
Having said that, Sony's 1st/2nd party isn't that bad as you make it to be. Sure, you as a Nintendo fan (no offence intended) could probably care less for what Sony is offering and perhaps fail to see the appeal of those titles. Can't blame you though - I just think that not all things are directly comparable. Ico's good, so is Mario. Is one better than the other? IMO not comparable. Is Nintendo's franchise better than Sony's? IMO not comparable as well. I as a PlayStation supporter enjoy them both. As to your list of games that don't have "Mario" in the title - good games they are, but as a PlayStation supporter, I'm not nearly as tempted by them as you probably are. Same goes to Halo on Xbox. Maybe that will change once I spend more time on them, but probably would you as well if you were to spend more time with Sony's 1st/2nd party games...
1) I don't see why people take offense at being called a fan of any console's games.
I wave the flag proudly. I love Nintendo franchises and have had each Nintendo console since the NES. No offense taken.
2) Why do you automatically assume that because I love Nintendo franchises I don't love PS franchises either? Has this generation of gamers become so polarized in which is better that they automatically cannot see the merits of another console's games?
As much as I "fought" with my friends about SNES vs Genesis, I was always over their houses playing their Genesis and Sega CD consoles, and count many of those games among my favorites of all time. Same with Neo Geo.
That said, I repeat what I stated earlier in this reply. I made that comparison as one who owned a PS1 and PS2 and counts the Wipeout series, Toshinden, Jumping Jack Flash, and Warhawk among my favorite titles of all time. Nintendo's 1st party franchises have been the bedrock of their consoles since the NES days. In comparison, the strength of the PS1 and PS2 were its 3rd party titles. It's even worse for the Xbox in terms of 1st party to 3rd party quality ratio.
If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for Nintendo consoles, they will by and large be Nintendo franchises. If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for Sony consoles, they will by and large be 3rd party. If you name the top 20 defining titles/franchises for MS consoles, they will DEFINITELY be 3rd party, save for Halo.
That's all I was stating. This isn't about opinion or fan bias, but merely what has occurred to date.
