Pachter's 2008 hardware sales forecast

[temesgen]

Eh? The majority of gamers couldnt care less about the online service, and certainly not enough to pay for it.

What MS have done is corner the hardcore market, and its those gamers who place a strong emphasis on Live!

Pachters predictions are based on what he thinks will happen at the time of year when console sales are high. During Q1 they are low.

I think the whole concept of a "hardcore" gamer is dubious at best, I own a PS3, Xbox 360, the DS and soon as it is possible to walk in and actually buy a Wii I will own one of those too. However I am not big fan of shooters in fact I don't have a Live gold account and I have only been on PSN with RFOM one time. I have decent amount of money on games on all of the platforms I own and in my mind I am certainly an avid if not hardcore gamer however since my gaming activity doesn't center around Live and online deathmatch I might not be considered 'hardcore' at least according to what you are outlining as the whole Xbox 360 library in my opinion is lacking in many areas while in other areas it provides exactly what I am looking for.

To me the whole appeal of Live and the Wii is much more simple than hardcore versus casual, there is simply a natural evolution occuring in gaming - the human to human interaction while cooperatively engaging in an activity is infinitly more compelling than traditional person and computer game interaction we have had for the past so many years. It really has nothing to do with shooting each other or engaging in a mini game it is the talking, competition, developing a persona, societial norms; in other words the human exchange which makes the whole thing stimulating.

And if you think about it this is no different than the paradigm shift that computing went thru over the past 15 years with the advent of the internet. There were always those who would find interacting with a computer interesting but when you add email, websites, i.e. easier interface to do what we want to do the computer user community grew exponentially and yet we don't call people who don't know what fortran is 'casuals' and I don't think 5 years from now we will call those who game but are not into shooters with online deathmatch casuals either.

The sooner that people accept that gaming is maturing, diversifying and most of all growing the user base by doing all the same things that computing did over the past decade the better off we will all be.

 

[PARANOiA]

You didn't catch what I said:
For a casual gamers who is really unlikely to pay the gold subscription, the 360 version is not more insteresting no matter how much extra content you add there is no on line.

We had a discussion sometime ago about the live and I really think that as more and more casual gamers enter the market segment shared by the 360 and the ps3 the more the gold live subscription will hurts MS.
I still agree with myself...
Ms has to go with per games subscription or quota say 4 hours/ month (arbitrary number here)=> free illimited=>4
Ms also add more advantage to the gold live subscription to make it worse
But live cost is clearly an huge issue as more consumers are about to jump in (and that psn become better).

I always read this and have to think it's a really one-sided view. Live Gold (if that's your cup of tea) comes with the machine for a month, and stacks of new games over here (not sure about the States though) come with 1 month cards. I can however play in HD with a rumble controller.

On the other hand, someone playing the PS3 version "needs" to get a HDMI cable ($25AUD for the cheapies over here, though those looking for component/VGA are going to be set back much more) and if I want rumble it's an extra $99 over here... not to mention the system costs $100-200 more depending on where you shop.

So for a year's worth of gaming with all the "extras" its poor value to me - seeing people throwing Live as a "need to have" while excluding all the added costs of the PS3 isn't taking in the whole picture.

Fortunately it's all about choice - do people care about the PS3's value prop (free online without the system integtraion Live has, no rumble, no HD out of the box, Wifi) vs the 360's (pay for online after a while, HD out of the box, rumble, best in class online service). I guess we'll see, but to put it down to Live cost vs No Live cost is overly simple and short sighted to me.

Edit: oh and of course BR for the PS3 value prop, if that's your cup 'o tea!

Oh and Superedit: I also put the Wii's overall success down in part to having exactly this kind of value-add difference that is just icing on the cake for their "non-gamer" success. In the box you have absolutely everything you need to have a fun gaming experience - an innovative controller, a system with all the motion-sensing equipment needed, and a game that takes instant advantage of what differentiates the machine. A personal view, but definitely something I think makes mums and dads a lot less confused than trying to get their son a PS3 or 360 for example.

 

[Arwin]

A lot of my PS3 owning colleagues bought the basic PS3, and an HDMI cable. Nothing else necessary. Heck initially they barely bought games either, just one or two for themselves, with their kids enjoying the PSN demoes more than enough!

Also, if you add the extra bucks for rumble into the mix, do you also count the lack of motion controls at the 360's end? I know a lot of traditional gamers seem to value rumble a rather lot, but motion control is nice too. Also, if you want rumble, that cost isn't as big if you wanted a second controller anyway (I have 3 now, still want one more for the 4 player games of which there are pleasingly and surprisingly many among the PSN games).

Of course there are also some other controller things like recharging etc. Anyway, I remember that I've had this discussion a thousand times before. For me, Live has cost me 60 euro for 5 years now almost and it's a lot of money, so I am rather strongly aware of the additional costs. An HDMI cable is really the only purchase you need.

 

[betan]

No it doesn't. See world of warcraft.

I don't know what you think WoW proves since you don't have a data on people who skipped or canceled WoW subscriptions because they knew they wouldn't be playing often.

On the other hand there is something called common sense.
Now imagine how many more would be playing WoW if "online" was free.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't know what you think WoW proves since you don't have a data on people who skipped or canceled WoW subscriptions because they knew they wouldn't be playing often.

I know there are millions of casuals paying $15 a month. Lots of people don't play all that much (a few hours a week).

On the other hand there is something called common sense.
Now imagine how many more would be playing WoW if "online" was free.

No, how about you imagine how many less would play WoW if it sucked or even if it just had reduced PvP. Imagine it had no guild system and no PvP.

 

[betan]

I know there are millions of casuals paying $15 a month. Lots of people don't play all that much (a few hours a week).

Very good, now what's the ratio of this to people who don't, but otherwise (if willing to play more) would?

No, how about you imagine how many less would play WoW if it sucked or even if it just had reduced PvP. Imagine it had no guild system and no PvP.

And this is related how?

 

[PARANOiA]

Anyway, I remember that I've had this discussion a thousand times before. For me, Live has cost me 60 euro for 5 years now almost and it's a lot of money, so I am rather strongly aware of the additional costs. An HDMI cable is really the only purchase you need.

We certainly have - I'm simply putting up the other side of the argument that's had around here frequently from one point of view, and infrequently from the other.

Though I have no idea why you would bother paying 60 euro for Live, Arwin, for five years no less. You simply don't use your Xbox - Live tracks your usage, which we're all free to see. Why not use this amount you pay for a Wii or more PS3 games? I guess there's no substitute for common sense but it seems to me you have more dollars than said sense

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Xbox Live is cheap. $4/month. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. My morning ice cappacino is $3.50.

Seriously, it's only the cheapest and poorest people or those with an axe to grind that don't think Live is worth it. It costs more to rent a movie than it does to play Call of Duty 4 for a month on Xbox Live. What's the issue? Seems pretty silly to me.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Very good, now what's the ratio of this to people who don't, but otherwise (if willing to play more) would?

And this is related how?

There are lots of free games that don't get played near as much as World of Warcraft. People don't mind paying for services they consider worthwhile.

 

[betan]

People don't mind paying for services they consider worthwhile.

I guess, I don't get how some minds work.
Do you really need WoW data to come up with this conclusion?
And again, how is this contradictory (or even related) to what I said?

 

[woundingchaney]

I guess, I don't get how some minds work.
Do you really need WoW data to come up with this conclusion?
And again, how is this contradictory (or even related) to what I said?

On you phone bill do you have call waiting, caller id, three way calling??
Do you have internet access on your cell phone bill or unlimited text messaging?
Did you buy the in-house service package with your new car??


Do you have any unnecessary payments included in any of your daily life bills simply because you deem the cost to be trivial in comparison to the advantage of having the service or package?? I would be surprised if you didnt. The same concept applies with people that can easily and readily validate the cost of Live. I can easily think of several additional costs that I acquire for additional services that I may or may not regularly use simply so I have the option to use them when I so choose. I would imagine that this aspect is widespread with many that have even a moderate amount of cushion in their budget. I cant help but believe that even a casual gamer would pay for the cost of Live even when they arent using it frequently.

 

[one]

I guess, I don't get how some minds work.
Do you really need WoW data to come up with this conclusion?
And again, how is this contradictory (or even related) to what I said?

Maybe he's suggesting Xbox Live Gold and WoW are competitors that follow the same money and casual people? "Oh I have to cancel WoW since I'm running out of money to subscribe to XBLive" or vice versa.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Maybe he's suggesting Xbox Live Gold and WoW are competitors that follow the same money and casual people? "Oh I have to cancel WoW since I'm running out of money to subscribe to XBLive" or vice versa.

or maybe he's intelligent enough to know that casual does not equal poor.

 

[betan]

On you phone bill do you have call waiting, caller id, three way calling??
Do you have internet access on your cell phone bill or unlimited text messaging?
Did you buy the in-house service package with your new car??


Do you have any unnecessary payments included in any of your daily life bills simply because you deem the cost to be trivial in comparison to the advantage of having the service or package?? I would be surprised if you didnt. The same concept applies with people that can easily and readily validate the cost of Live. I can easily think of several additional costs that I acquire for additional services that I may or may not regularly use simply so I have the option to use them when I so choose.

You are trying to prove that people do pay for options if they see fit.
The question is why are you trying to prove that?
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Let me quote myself:

A person who spends less time playing, spends less time playing online, which means less likely will pay for a monthly or yearly online service.

Do you guys read this as people don't pay for online when they don't play often?
I'm pretty sure there are even gold subscribers who don't play for months.

BTW, the answer to most of your questions is no. Which means I don't see them necessary, or worth buying knowing that I won't use often. There is this almost never used cable TV though. :|
If I texted more often on my cell, I would consider unlimited texting seriously, which is the point.
Surely you are not in the habit of buying all available services without considering its value.
Again, this is the point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Seriously, it's only the cheapest and poorest people or those with an axe to grind that don't think Live is worth it. It costs more to rent a movie than it does to play Call of Duty 4 for a month on Xbox Live. What's the issue?

Because the competition offer gaming online for free? Yes, you have lots of lovely extras with Live!, but if all you want is to go online to play a game, which some of us do only occasionally, any amount to pay is infinitely more expensive than what we're used to paying. I would rather save £40 and buy an online game to play with my friends, than have to spend that money for the option to play a game with them, and then find another £40 for the actual game. Yes, it's only $4 a month, but that could be $4 spent on other things, or saved.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The cost for live certainly does seem to be of great concern to people who don't own a 360.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's probably why they don't own one

 

[PARANOiA]

Because the competition offer gaming online for free? Yes, you have lots of lovely extras with Live!, but if all you want is to go online to play a game, which some of us do only occasionally, any amount to pay is infinitely more expensive than what we're used to paying. I would rather save £40 and buy an online game to play with my friends, than have to spend that money for the option to play a game with them, and then find another £40 for the actual game. Yes, it's only $4 a month, but that could be $4 spent on other things, or saved.

So why not buy a month's worth of play instead of the 12-month card? It's not 40 or nothing. Paying for 12 months when you don't use it like a "hardcore" gamer is not wise if you're not a keen gamer... use a month if that's how long it's going to take you to get sick of the game *shrug*

 

[woundingchaney]

You are trying to prove that people do pay for options if they see fit.
The question is why are you trying to prove that?

The point is that people pay for services that they do not necessarily use daily or even regularly simply for the convenience of having them when they choose to utilize them. I do not see how this doesnt reflect on gamers whether they be "casual" or not. I personally thought the point correlated nicely with the topic.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

There is no comparable service being offered to Live that is free. Period.

I'm sure some casual PS3 gamers are fine with bare-bones Madden every now and again, but that doesn't really matter to Microsoft. They don't want anyone who isn't going to pay.