Because given the sales data we've seen, BluRay hasn't been that big of influence on the US market not enough to trumph price.
Lacking a BluRay drive isn't a real barrier.
NPD April 2008 (Post #16)
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Because given the sales data we've seen, BluRay hasn't been that big of influence on the US market not enough to trumph price.
Lacking a BluRay drive isn't a real barrier.
I actually went to a GameStop with a friend of mine who was intending to buy a PS3. He asked for one, and the clerk promptly replied "Oh you don't want one. Every game has to be installed, you're gonna spend all your time deleting games off he hard drive." So I whispered "let's go to the BestBuy across the street" and soon he had a PS3.
I think it's probably a very good thing people don't ask the clerks to explain the consoles to them.
Snobbery. People buy the Wii because they want it. They know exactly what it is.
I'm pretty sure I've seen sales clerks in Futureshop pitch the PS3 for people with HDTVs because it has Bluray and the 360 does not. They're working on commission, so they try to throw it in as a "take advantage of your TV." It's a reasonable sales tactic, because even if you don't play games Bluray might be alright to have. Otherwise, I have never seen a clerk pitch a console of any sort.
I actually went to a GameStop with a friend of mine who was intending to buy a PS3. He asked for one, and the clerk promptly replied "Oh you don't want one. Every game has to be installed, you're gonna spend all your time deleting games off he hard drive." So I whispered "let's go to the BestBuy across the street" and soon he had a PS3.
I think it's probably a very good thing people don't ask the clerks to explain the consoles to them.
Depend on if the clerks is reliable.
And between why your mate asked as you obviously had already give him your opinion?
If you received comission from your sales, wouldn't the 360 be the better product to push.
The comission can't be too large for a small margin item like a console. It would seem more lucrative to push a 360 to someone who actually wanted one and then get them to buy into all the accessories that the PS3 lacks. 2 charge and play kits for the controller already in the box and the extra one so two people can play, a wifi adaptor, memory cards for saves on the go, Live cards and a replacement plan that easier to sell when you hit them with the RROD issue are all products should have better margins and lead to bigger comissions.
The comission can't be too large for a small margin item like a console. It would seem more lucrative to push a 360 to someone who actually wanted one and then get them to buy into all the accessories that the PS3 lacks. 2 charge and play kits for the controller already in the box and the extra one so two people can play, a wifi adaptor, memory cards for saves on the go, Live cards and a replacement plan that easier to sell when you hit them with the RROD issue are all products should have better margins and lead to bigger comissions.
To a gamer, sure. But for the average person buying an HDTV, they're selling the PS3 as a Bluray player, not a game machine.
scooby_dooby
Legend
No doubt.
It's the volume of software sold that matters. Obviously this month most PS3 or XB360 owners bought GTA 4.
The Microsoft model is working well and it's a two pronged attack. They have the traditional hardware/software sales going along just fine and the online platform (Xbox LIVE) is becoming more dominant every day.
A 3rd party game that is non-exclusive crossed over the four (4) million units sold threshold on the XB360. CoD 4 really demonstrates how Microsoft has captured the hardcore gaming market. Now with no bump to PS3 hardware sales because of GTA 4, all the pressure is on Sony to remain relevant.
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
Unfortunately, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are simply seen by the mainstream as the console that nerds, virgins, perverts (Soul Calibur 4 is apparently trying to appeal to this crowd
You forgot anti-social murdering psychopaths, but otherwise, you nailed it. Gaming's been seen as this evil spawn of satan by the general public and gamers are like social outcasts. Unless they broaden the appeal, we'll always remain that way. Many of today's so called "hardcore" gamers are a joke. They can barely play anything outside of one or two genres, and can't handle anything remotely challenging. This also causes the market to lose quite a bit of creativity. People want to just play the same genre they're good at and can't do anything else beyond that. I mean, I really can't think of anything recently on either 360 or PS3 that doesn't look like it's "been there done that."
What about Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Gran Turismo 5, Grand theft auto 4, Guitar Hero 3 and Madden 08?
Wii's success shouldn't be a surprise by now.
I still think that Nintendo had a better analysis of the previous generation, and realized that the greater part of the PS2 userbase wasn't into the hardcore segment of its game library. For every person who bought GTA, there were another 4 who didn't, and that was the most successful core game on the platform, and also the coolest. Games like MGS, FF, God of War, Ratchet and the like sold to what, 3-8% of the user base at most? If we'd add up sales for all these big games, how much would it cover from the ~1 billion units of software sold for the PS2? I wouldn't be surprised if it would be less then half, you need to have 500 million sellers or 250 double million sellers for that. It'd be interesting to analyze software charts a bit...
So the PS2 userbase was a lot more varied than what we've used to believe. Since it became the lead platform early on, all kinds of developers flocked to it, not just the big name hardcore studios like Square or Konami or Naughty Dog. Fishing and hunting games, kids' movie adaptations, party games and everything else were all released on the PS2 mainly, so casual gamers haven't really had a choice. And of course this only strengthened the PS2's position and led even more developers to the platform.
The games library for the console has thousands of titles, most of which we've never even heard about, because they've never really made it to the TOP 10 or million seller lists. But all these small titles added up in the end and contributed a lot to Sony's profits as well.
But this time its different, it seems most of the PS2 user base choose the Wii for their next console, and both the games and the price have played a big role in this, and of course the controller as well. It's actually rather fortunate this way as we'll get a much clearer picture of the structure of the market, as hardcore gamers will obviously still buy PS3s and Xboxes mostly.
I wouldn't be surprised to see similar sales as last gen for the hardcore franchises, while the Wii will eventually get the huge library of low budget casual games that we've simply overlooked on the PS2.I still expect the HD consoles to get the better attach rates in the end, which will be enough to offset the lead of the Wii in software profits. I'm thinking 12-13 for MS and Sony, and about 7-8 for Nintendo. More importantly, selling relatively more software to a smaller userbase will probably also offset the larger losses on hardware IMHO. Thus I see no reason to drastically alter the business model for the next PS and Xbox; although the jump in the hardware capabilities will probably not be as big, partly because of diminishing returns, which will keep the costs at a more reasonable level. I also expect the return of important hardware addons; as someone has pointed out before, Sony probably lost a billion dollars just on giving up the memory card from the PS2 (every single console owner had to purchase at least one, so that's about a hundred million cards and I'm sure they've not been shy on the margins).
As for the current lack of sales, GTA will have an effect, just give it some time. GTA3 has continued to move hardware for almost a year, and now everyone's disappointed that 5 days in the slowest month have not produced something similar to that...
I still think that Nintendo had a better analysis of the previous generation, and realized that the greater part of the PS2 userbase wasn't into the hardcore segment of its game library. For every person who bought GTA, there were another 4 who didn't, and that was the most successful core game on the platform, and also the coolest. Games like MGS, FF, God of War, Ratchet and the like sold to what, 3-8% of the user base at most? If we'd add up sales for all these big games, how much would it cover from the ~1 billion units of software sold for the PS2? I wouldn't be surprised if it would be less then half, you need to have 500 million sellers or 250 double million sellers for that. It'd be interesting to analyze software charts a bit...
So the PS2 userbase was a lot more varied than what we've used to believe. Since it became the lead platform early on, all kinds of developers flocked to it, not just the big name hardcore studios like Square or Konami or Naughty Dog. Fishing and hunting games, kids' movie adaptations, party games and everything else were all released on the PS2 mainly, so casual gamers haven't really had a choice. And of course this only strengthened the PS2's position and led even more developers to the platform.
The games library for the console has thousands of titles, most of which we've never even heard about, because they've never really made it to the TOP 10 or million seller lists. But all these small titles added up in the end and contributed a lot to Sony's profits as well.
But this time its different, it seems most of the PS2 user base choose the Wii for their next console, and both the games and the price have played a big role in this, and of course the controller as well. It's actually rather fortunate this way as we'll get a much clearer picture of the structure of the market, as hardcore gamers will obviously still buy PS3s and Xboxes mostly.
I wouldn't be surprised to see similar sales as last gen for the hardcore franchises, while the Wii will eventually get the huge library of low budget casual games that we've simply overlooked on the PS2.I still expect the HD consoles to get the better attach rates in the end, which will be enough to offset the lead of the Wii in software profits. I'm thinking 12-13 for MS and Sony, and about 7-8 for Nintendo. More importantly, selling relatively more software to a smaller userbase will probably also offset the larger losses on hardware IMHO. Thus I see no reason to drastically alter the business model for the next PS and Xbox; although the jump in the hardware capabilities will probably not be as big, partly because of diminishing returns, which will keep the costs at a more reasonable level. I also expect the return of important hardware addons; as someone has pointed out before, Sony probably lost a billion dollars just on giving up the memory card from the PS2 (every single console owner had to purchase at least one, so that's about a hundred million cards and I'm sure they've not been shy on the margins).
As for the current lack of sales, GTA will have an effect, just give it some time. GTA3 has continued to move hardware for almost a year, and now everyone's disappointed that 5 days in the slowest month have not produced something similar to that...
for the xbox360 this is the first month theyve sold less than 200k, since they dropped the price last year
April07 174000
may07155000
june07 198440
jult07 170000
aug07 276700 // pricecut
though looking at the modest jump, even a pricecut is not gonna help against the wii machine
i dont know why (dont wanna face the truth,which is reasonable i suppose) ppl say the wii aint competeing against the ps360, of course it is for the dollars, a consumer has a fixed X number of dollars a week to spend on 'luxury' items, if they're spending them on wiifit they prolly wont pick up mgs4.
i dont think mgs4 is gonna do that well, (it might have good legs though, if its a quality title)
April07 174000
may07155000
june07 198440
jult07 170000
aug07 276700 // pricecut
though looking at the modest jump, even a pricecut is not gonna help against the wii machine
i dont know why (dont wanna face the truth,which is reasonable i suppose) ppl say the wii aint competeing against the ps360, of course it is for the dollars, a consumer has a fixed X number of dollars a week to spend on 'luxury' items, if they're spending them on wiifit they prolly wont pick up mgs4.
i dont think mgs4 is gonna do that well, (it might have good legs though, if its a quality title)
well when you're selling 4 times the units in a month....
undoubtedly, you are going to sell a game or two with every system. I just can not see the wii being able to keep a software lead per system compared to 360 and eventually perhaps PS3. I do not think they are selling HW to those that are compelled (kids/families) to sustain software sales like the 360 has.Mintmaster
Veteran
Of course, but the thing is that MS has no hope of swaying someone from a Wii. If someone wants that type of system, there's nothing MS can do. Even if they had an equivalent system with equivalent games (which they never will), why would anyone buy MS instead of Nintendo? I'm sure 3M could design some great sporting goods, but few if any would choose them over Nike or Adidas.
Sony is the one that should be crying this gen. They had the image and PS2 userbase to do exactly what Nintendo did, possibly with even greater success. They just didn't have the judgement and vision that Nintendo did. Maybe MS was similarly blind, but it's irrelevent because even if they did foresee the success of an accessible, casual games platform, they weren't in a position to capitalize on it.
Actually, the 360 has the most units of software in the top ten, followed by Wii.
iceberg187
Regular
In a sense, they are competing for the same dollars, but on the whole, many people are buying a Wii and would have never considered a 360/PS3. It's more to it than just HDTV/graphics. The casual game industry is booming and has been for a long time. Combine that fact with the well trusted name of Nintendo and you have the Wii. Combine that with the good press and the nigh flawless way that they have done with the business side, we have the phenomenon that we have today. One order of business is that Iwata is one of the world's best CEOs and he is a former game developer. That is what Microsoft is trying to do with Don Mattrick, someone that has been on both sides of the table. It's too late for this gen. Everything is set in stone basically.
Seriously?
Of the three new systems,it has the most diverse lineup of software,and allows people to interact with that software in the most ways and all for sale at the most affordable price of the three. Seems fairly straight forward.
This is very sad, at least in my view of the way the gaming industry should be heading. I would love to see games with 500 million + budgets in the next few years that could actually compete and overtake CGI films with art/development/acting/etc etc resources. I work with Film and TV projects on a daily basis, and I really believe that we could be within a generation or two of gaming releases taking over the status of what blockbuster films used to mean.
GTA IV is close to this today, but technically, it is very sad. Horrible variable frame rate, very akward driving camera. Games these days need the help of actual cinematographers. Someone to calculate camera movement limits with blur associated to frame rate, to divide scenes and make sure the camera doesnt cross the 180 degree line to keep the player from being confused by the space.
There are litteraly hundreds of things that games need to take from the almost 100+ years of filmmaking development. What does this have to do with the Wii? The Wii is not pushing development in the way I'd like to see the industry grow. It is selling fun/awful looking games in a time where we should be selling fun epic masterpieces like Heavenly Sword.
For me, Metal Gear Solid on the PSX was the "Birth of a Nation" (which is a truly awful racist movie) for the gaming world. For me, the Wii is like the equivalent of going back to the "Great Train Robbery" and presenting it in 3D. The gimick of the Wiimote is holding back the potential development of future blockbusters.
GTA IV is close to this today, but technically, it is very sad. Horrible variable frame rate, very akward driving camera. Games these days need the help of actual cinematographers. Someone to calculate camera movement limits with blur associated to frame rate, to divide scenes and make sure the camera doesnt cross the 180 degree line to keep the player from being confused by the space.
There are litteraly hundreds of things that games need to take from the almost 100+ years of filmmaking development. What does this have to do with the Wii? The Wii is not pushing development in the way I'd like to see the industry grow. It is selling fun/awful looking games in a time where we should be selling fun epic masterpieces like Heavenly Sword.
For me, Metal Gear Solid on the PSX was the "Birth of a Nation" (which is a truly awful racist movie) for the gaming world. For me, the Wii is like the equivalent of going back to the "Great Train Robbery" and presenting it in 3D. The gimick of the Wiimote is holding back the potential development of future blockbusters.
The business model of heavy hardware subsidization through software profits only works when you become market leader. It should noted that the longest player in this game Nintendo avoids this strategy and only Sony has only employed this strategy with any great success.
Only Nintendo is making money hands over fist while Sony and MS quarterly profits pale in comparsion to quarterly losses generated since release. What you have is two manufacturer destined for competing over a small highend hardcore segment of the market. Its makes no sense that the highest volume manufacturer with the most market penetration has the largest profit margin per console, while being the cheapest.
It also makes no sense that a market that generates 15-20 billion in revenue annually can only support one hardware manufacturer. Both MS and Sony have been subidizing their gaming division with profits generating from non gaming divisions. If Sony, MS and Nintendo had been gaming only companies both MS and Sony would be on the verge of collaspe. However, if Sony and MS were game only companies they would have been more careful with how they enter and sustain themselves in the market.
I wouldn't. $100 games that last for 2 hours aren't anything I want to play. On the other hand, have you noticed that there's more than one console on the market? Perhaps in a generation or two, there will still be more than one console on the market.
I hear that there's a console out there that can play Heavenly Sword...although I wouldn't exactly call it an "epic masterpiece." Pretty, though. But it's not like it's immoral to want to play an exercise game instead.