Apparently still more interesting then any other exclusive game on the PS3. But let's not get into this any further...
NPD December 2009
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
Apparently still more interesting then any other exclusive game on the PS3. But let's not get into this any further...
Thanks
Anyway at this stage they should provide a top twenty minus the Nintendo products related sales
Interesting multiplayer game and game mode ? Have you tried R2 Co-op and Demon's Souls ?
I don't really care which is more interesting, but you have to try the above if you like interesting multiplayer games/modes.
corduroygt
Banned
You really can't compare because it's not on PS3 so we won't know how well it would have sold. But I agree that this is not a game comparison thread (before Shifty beats me to it) and I personally don't go into arguments with Republican Space Rangers.
I'm still not understanding what is risky about Nintendo's strategy. I listed a good number of titles coming out, and Super Mario Galaxy was a huge game. I don't see anything riskier about Nintendo's strategy than the other players. They are outselling their competitors, despite a sales slump, and they make a profit on each piece of hardware they sell. They also have what looks to be a solid game lineup. I agree there are gradients to making money, and sales this year were not as good as last. They still massively outsold their competitors and turned in a huge profit. I'm sure they aren't happy it wasn't as big as the previous year, but I'm not seeing a lot of risk in what they're doing.
Super Mario Galaxy did fine, but it's not nearly the juggernaut that Mario Kart or Wii Fit were. Or that NSMBW may turn out to be. You have to keep that in perspective. Wii Music sold millions, it wasn't a failure in terms of making a profit, it just didn't drive sales the way Nintendo had hoped it would.
As to your good number of titles, that's all it is, a good number of titles. Trauma Center, really? Are we betting on Monster Hunter, a series that at best is unproven in the west? Hell, a couple of them aren't even announced for 2010.
The other players rely on good third party relations to push platform adoption. There's no reason to believe that, had things been different, the Wii couldn't have been the vehicle for much of the blockbuster IP this generation, other than MS and Sony going out of their way to help 3rd parties and Nintendo apparently doing not much (there are exceptions, like MH3, but that's what they seem to be, just exceptions).
I really don't understand how you can't see that it's risky to stake your success in a year on a single title. Eggs in a basket and all that. Especially when that strategy has failed you already! If you reply to anything, reply to this. But no, you can't say that they're making money on hardware, or that they're outselling competitors. The issue isn't that they're not doing well, but that they're not doing well enough.
Think of it in terms of shareholders, then. If you promise shareholders a certain type of result and have to reevaluate or just outright miss the guidance, that's a bad thing. It'd be worse if they had been doing poorly, of course, but that's the point. It's not whether they could be doing worse, it's that they could be doing better.
Isn't it split into "Halo 3" (the MP disc) and "ODST" (the SP disc) though?
Okay, so say it's half a year just on Wii Music. How's that? It doesn't seem much better, especially if we consider how Wii Sports Resort also failed to boost hardware sales significantly. The whole point is that relying on Nintendo as a megahitmaker isn't sustainable, and Wii Sports Resort reinforces that. Nintendo doesn't have the bandwidth to keep a steady cavalcade of titles throughout the year, and even they can't guarantee a Wii Fit every single time. When one of your game fails to push hardware, they have nothing to fall back on, and their sales slump. Hence risky.
Let's not even get into how Nintendo announces game releases a week or two before they're actually released (see Excitebots). Wii Sports Resort had some decent fanfare, that's true.
You don't see how it's different, by describing how it's different?
I guess if you're talking about the shareholders perspectives, people who always want more, then you're probably right. If you're talking about relative to their competitors, I see nothing risky about their strategy, and I couldn't possibly say they weren't doing good enough, because that would mean MS and Sony are both doing really really really really really really really really poorly.
I still don't see how they are relying on a single title for the year. There's some good ones in that list I made, and a number of them are slated for holiday time frame with the rest throughout the year. Super Mario Galaxy sold over 8 million copies, and that's a pretty huge title in my mind. Maybe not relative to Wii Play or Wii Fit, but relative to anything the 360 and PS3 have to offer, it's in the realm of huge titles. Oh, and Trauma Center is not a big seller, but it's a pretty wicked game.
I still don't see how they are relying on a single title for the year. There's some good ones in that list I made, and a number of them are slated for holiday time frame with the rest throughout the year. Super Mario Galaxy sold over 8 million copies, and that's a pretty huge title in my mind. Maybe not relative to Wii Play or Wii Fit, but relative to anything the 360 and PS3 have to offer, it's in the realm of huge titles. Oh, and Trauma Center is not a big seller, but it's a pretty wicked game.
Your original point was that ODST hasn't got anything new to grab player's attention. I've tried to bring up reasons why it is not true, why a lot of people buyed the game and play it online frequently.
But we're not talking relative to their competitors. What do their competitors have to do anything with it? Do you think there's some 'war' going on, rather than three corporations trying to make money? They're competing, certainly, but yes, shareholders do come before beating Sony.
Keep in mind what you're comparing it to. We're talking about Mario Kart and Wii Fit. Mario Galaxy sold over a million in nov, over a million in dec, a little under 200k in jan, off the top 10 in feb and off the top 20 in march. Mario Kart Wii has dropped out of top 10 only twice since it released, and out of top 20 only once.
They're in completely different leagues. Mario Galaxy charts like (very popular) regular games. Nintendo was hoping for something more out of Wii Music and, apparently, from NSMBW.
Sure, but the 360 and PS3 have a bunch of other huge titles being offered up by everyone else, spanning a broad reach of genres. That's what draws people to other platforms. Nintendo has what Nintendo can produce; Nintendo doesn't have the bandwidth to keep a steady flow of games coming, clearly. Nintendo titles don't always draw more people in. And again, Nintendo shouldn't have to be doing all the heavy work on its own.
And please, let's not get into quality, it's not germane to this discussion.
I think the games are sufficiently different (FPS/3rd person, MP/SP focus) that there's only a small overlap.
*nods*. The reason I asked is that I've seen that argument put forward a few times (Live makes a difference in sales) and was curious if these CoD6 sales fluctuations corroborate (or not) that.
I've also heard FPS sell better on the xbox but again, if Nov was because "get your MP perks early" on your MP console of choice (XBOX) then that could explain why a month later sales of a FPS for both consoles were nearly equal.
Well, I was talking relative to the competitors. They're in the same market, and they're dominating. I really don't care which console "wins." I'm just saying that if you dominate the market, you're usually not in a bad or risky position.
Yeah, the 3rd parties could do more for Nintendo, and they should find a way to make that work for them, but so far they're doing pretty well carrying the load on their own.
I really couldn't care less about shareholders, which is a bit less than I care about who "wins" this gen. Maybe they've promised more to their shareholders than they can achieve. I don't follow that stuff. I just can't see Nintendo's position in the market being risky.
The only reason I listed all of those games is because they round out the library. We use the same argument on behalf of the PS3 and 360 all the time. Having a strong library helps sales, even if it's hard to directly relate the two. Some of the others should be very solid sellers, as "regular" titles go. I don't see them relying on a single title to carry the load. They've had a lot of successful titles, and those titles are still helping move the system, albeit at a lower but still impressive rate.
Yeah, the 3rd parties could do more for Nintendo, and they should find a way to make that work for them, but so far they're doing pretty well carrying the load on their own.
I really couldn't care less about shareholders, which is a bit less than I care about who "wins" this gen. Maybe they've promised more to their shareholders than they can achieve. I don't follow that stuff. I just can't see Nintendo's position in the market being risky.
The only reason I listed all of those games is because they round out the library. We use the same argument on behalf of the PS3 and 360 all the time. Having a strong library helps sales, even if it's hard to directly relate the two. Some of the others should be very solid sellers, as "regular" titles go. I don't see them relying on a single title to carry the load. They've had a lot of successful titles, and those titles are still helping move the system, albeit at a lower but still impressive rate.
It's a sales thread. Either shareholders behind the numbers matter, or you're in here for the direct competition of number vs. number. If it's the second, Nintendo wins.
If it's the first and you really can't see what I'm saying, I can't see any point in discussing this with you anymore. They have a strategy that failed them before. They persist in that strategy. That's risky.
Alright. How many aren't sequels? Those don't round out libraries. But seriously; much love to Atlus, but their biggest game in the US was what, Demons Souls at 200k and change? If you were to list the big titles coming out for PS3 in the first half of this year would they list 3D Dot Game Heroes, also brought by Atlus? Again, it's a matter of perspective. It's fine to be excited for games you like, but this is a sales thread.
corduroygt
Banned
And I linked to Live charts showing ODST wasn't being played online frequently. Halo 3 yes, ODST not so much.
corduroygt
Banned
Week vs. ODST rank
9.22.09 2
9.28.09 3
10.5.09 4
10.12.09 4
10.19.09 4
10.26.09 5
11.9.09 9
11.23.09 >10
12.7.09 >10
12.14.09 >10
All data taken from Major Nelson. By the time MW2 hit, ODST was dying, and never charted in the top 10 after MW2. Uncharted 2 was released a month later and was still in its prime when MW2 was released.
lazybum131
Newcomer
I’m not convinced about your assertion that Nintendo relies on a single title a year to push that you seem to see as self-evident. Certainly the mega blockbuster has a visible boost on hardware sales, but the lesser selling games are all there to maintain momentum. The failure of Wii Music and Animal Crossing as system sellers became a problem because Nintendo left early 2009 bare of other compelling software, and mindshare about the Wii took a beating after the disastrous E3 2008.
I think you’re too caught up in the whole first vs. third-party games thing. Bottom-line is that software sells hardware. The Wii is more reliant of first-party games only because third-parties have ignored the Wii. Having weak third-party support isn’t some sort of strategy that Nintendo sought to create, that’s on third-parties’ self-fulfilling prophecy that the Wii is a fad.
It’s not that MS or Sony don’t want to have huge 15+ million sellers like Nintendo that’ll cause big bumps in hardware sales, it’s that they haven’t been successful in creating them or lucking out on a third-party making such a game on their system. I don’t see how MS or Sony relying on the chance of a blockbuster third-party games is any less risky than Nintendo relying on their own developers.
Microsoft is saying that shipped 10million worldwide. Is that right? They actually shipped 5.2million outside the US?
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37179/Microsoft-clarifies-NPD-claims
Tommy McClain
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37179/Microsoft-clarifies-NPD-claims
Tommy McClain
