What constitutes a successful console? (other than profit!) *spawn

[Deleted member 11852]

May be. Mario and it being restricted to Nintendo hardware may be analogous to Marvel chars limited to comic books for so many years. Superman as a film and TV property has been around since the 40s and still seeing releases. Batman has been a film property since the 40s too.

Superman and Batman have had decades of breaks between movies/TV series/games. There were Superman movies in the 1940/50s then nothing until the 1970s then two decades break. Batman was similar, movies in the 60s, several decades of break, then four movies in the 1980s/90s then a decade break.

Ask yourself what mainstream entertainment IPs have been relentlessly pushed for the last four decades and are still doing well? They may be some, but there certainly aren't many. Just look at what's popular at the cinema, or on TV, or in games and for the most part, it's relatively new or fresh. It's nice to see COD and BF sales down last year. It's still doing well but interest is waning. Some IPs do manage to work - Bond films for example, Star Trek is still doing well - albeit after over a decade of rest before the reboot.

Rehashing IP time and time again is probably one of the most successful strategies employed by digital media. Yes, people like new things but they tend to like more of the same even more.

It is but few IPs have been trotted out on such a consistent basis with no real break as Nintendo IPs. They give their IP no break at all; there is always a new Mario game being worked on and always a new Zelda game being worked on.

 

[goonergaz]

The thing about the current XBOne vs. historical 360 sales graph, though, is that they aren't just comparable in terms of absolute sales numbers. The sales trends even match up to an uncanny degree. XBOne is selling poorly now in a period when the 360s sales also consistently slowed and flattened. Am I the only one who remembers how the PS3 would year after year close the sales gap for the first 9 months of the year only to have the 360 absolutely kill it in Q4 and push it back out again (just delaying the inevitable as it turned out)? The current XBOnes sales aren't really that off from what one could expect them to be based on the 360's historical performance.

If they have weak holiday sales, though, that would indicate a serious problem. As such, I expect them to use every move available to them to make sure that doesn't happen. I think a strong E3 showing could go a long way towards putting them in position to be successful through the end of the year.

I recall this too (about Sony closing the gap then during holiday MS knocked them back), however the problem with looking at the graph how you have is you can look at it and say it tracks double WiiU numbers nearly perfectly or that (up to month 14) it tracked perfectly alongside the PS3 (and you could even argue as well as the PS2) - so you can see why the graphs mean very little at this stage.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It is but few IPs have been trotted out on such a consistent basis with no real break as Nintendo IPs. They give their IP no break at all; there is always a new Mario game being worked on and always a new Zelda game being worked on.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Mario
Release 2009, Mario on Wii sells over 28 million. From 2012, sells 9 million on 3DS. If it weren't for Wii U's lousy hardware sales, Mario would likely have done stellar on that as well in total numbers. As it is, it's a paltry ~50% of install base, 4 million sales.

How do Sony's IPs compare? Their best-selling title on PS3 was GT5, at 10 million on an install base 4x larger than Wii U, an utterly generic, recycled IP from 1997 that we know is never going to stop, save when there's no reason to improve because it can't be reimagined unlike Mario. The top selling titles on PS4 are GTA and COD and FIFA - never ending franchise reiterations. Sony's best efforts, far less successful than Nintendo's IPs on Nintendo's console, are recycled/remade IPs. Sony's new IPs, DriveClub and Knack, have done relatively poorly.

Seems to me the data is pretty solid. Big brands with lots of history sell better than new IPs. That's why they are recycled ad nauseam, and why I agree with the idea that it's staying power being exhibited. The public is free to stop buying Mario whenever they want, but it consistently outsells other younger IPs. I can agree that Nintendo are overly conservative and should also be branching out to try and find the next Big Thing (Hearthstone, Destiny, LoL, etc), but they certainly shouldn't drop their bread-and-butter money-making IPs.

 

[goonergaz]

Yes, in many ways whilst Micky Mouse isn't being used the same (any more) it's a similar effect in that everything Disney related is linked to MM and anything Ninty related is Mario linked...I wonder if there ever will be a time when Mario isn't used to move titles - they make enjoyable games like Mario Party and Tennis, would they have sold without the Mario name? Would they have sold at all?

At least Sony are trying to make a similar mascot - Sackboy had the potential but didn't manage to gain any traction...certainly nothing like Mario, but of course, comparing a character as old as Mario with new upstarts is a bit unfair - I grew up with Mario as did many gamers, many parents will buy Mario titles based off that anyway, certainly that's why I bought them for my kids...I'm playing my games and the kids can have Mario.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I think Mario and Zelda are the very definition of making examplary use of successful ips. These are mere frameworks for trying out different things. There's a world of difference between the likes of Mario 3d World, Mario Galaxy and Mario Sunshine. There also aren't all that many of them either. Typically Nintendo releases a single big Mario game per console. Same with Zelda. Now compare that to how many Assassin's Creeds or CoDs we've had last gen. Something like 8?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

they make enjoyable games like Mario Party and Tennis, would they have sold without the Mario name?

The brand helps signficantly. That's why companies spend considerable amounts of money on building brands, and people exist who's job is just to increase brand awareness and value. There are even careers of celebrities built pretty much just on brand.

At least Sony are trying to make a similar mascot

From the 80s, the Mascot was considered important but no-one has pulled it off since Mario and Sonic. I'm not sure the mascot idea will work any more because consoles are so diverse. I think it's a competitive advantage Nintendo has that the others can't match or even attempt to challenge with (not that they need to).

 

[goonergaz]

There were quite a few big Mario games on Wii - Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy x2 & Super Mario Bros not to mention Mario Olympics/Party type games

 

[Sigfried1977]

^ And most of them are radically different games, if not from outright different genres altogether. This isn't like the Assassin's Creed or CoD or Uncharted situation where fuck all changes besides the scenery.
And the problem with Sackboy as a video game mascot (assuming for a moment the concept of foisting mascots on the player base still had value in this day and age) is that he's not so much the star of a terrific game. He's the star of a rather unwieldy tool kit - or rather 3 largely identical tool kits - frequently used to make bad clones of Mario Bros world 1-1.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Mario
Release 2009, Mario on Wii sells over 28 million. From 2012, sells 9 million on 3DS. If it weren't for Wii U's lousy hardware sales, Mario would likely have done stellar on that as well in total numbers. As it is, it's a paltry ~50% of install base, 4 million sales

It's no surprise that Mario on Wii sold well, it came after a year of gaming drought unless you were into Wii Fit or Wii Sports Resort. Would have it sold as well if consumers had a choice of great games to play? That's a different question.

How do Sony's IPs compare? Their best-selling title on PS3 was GT5, at 10 million on an install base 4x larger than Wii U, an utterly generic, recycled IP from 1997 that we know is never going to stop, save when there's no reason to improve because it can't be reimagined unlike Mario.

Racing sims are a pretty niche market but the comment above applies. The PlayStation (and Xbox) both have lots of great games. Anybody without unlimited money has to chose. If you give people no choice, which is almost how owning a Wii felt (I know, I owned one), you bought Mario whether you liked the IP or not.

Seems to me the data is pretty solid. Big brands with lots of history sell better than new IPs.

It's not really solid because the Wii market for great games was pretty limited. You could argue virtually no choice is still a choice but you can't compare Wii owner buying habits and compare them to PlayStation or Xbox, both of which have always had a greater selection of good games. There have now been three Mario games on the Wii U. You'd think a big popular IP would draw in sales but that isn't happening. Could it be those IPs actually aren't the draw they once were?

 

[mrcorbo]

I recall this too (about Sony closing the gap then during holiday MS knocked them back), however the problem with looking at the graph how you have is you can look at it and say it tracks double WiiU numbers nearly perfectly or that (up to month 14) it tracked perfectly alongside the PS3 (and you could even argue as well as the PS2) - so you can see why the graphs mean very little at this stage.

No, actually, I can't see how you are determining which data is relevant and which "means very little". I would argue that you could look at each comparison you listed (double WIIU, PS3, etc.) and learn something about the relative sales performance of the two products as long as you factor in the differences in the market conditions they were selling in. Just because comparing two different sets of data requires more thought than, "those numbers are bigger than these numbers" that doesn't make those comparisons impossible or meaningless.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Would have it sold as well if consumers had a choice of great games to play...

That's quite a good argument. However, I'd counter that people bought these consoles to play these titles specifically. I suppose the direct rhetorical counter would be, "would PS fans have bought GT if Mario was available on PS3?"

The limited choice of software (which is never as limited as sales figures of Nintendo IPs suggests. Some 320 titles were released on Wii in 2009) is as much a product of people choosing to buy Nintendo games over rivals rather than rivals not being available. If people who bought Mario really wanted to play COD and GTA and Bioshock and whatever else you count as a 'good' game, don't you think they'd own a different platform and buy the content they actually want? Rather than buying games they aren't really keen on en masse because there's nothing better available. Incidentally, COD was available just before Mario in 2009, so it's not like there wasn't a direct alternative.

Every game sale is a game sale showing someone wanted to buy it in a free market where they can spend their money on anything. People have repeatedly chosen to buy Mario titles in their droves, decade after decade, in a market with many other alternatives both on different platforms and Nintendo's platforms and in other forms of entertainment. Games which have also been consistently highly rated in independent reviews. That can't be explained with a few generic excuses like, "they don't really like Mario all that much but there's nothing else to play on Wii."

You'd think a big popular IP would draw in sales but that isn't happening. Could it be those IPs actually aren't the draw they once were?

The hardware sucks. A comparative question is if Wii U sold as well as PS4, do you think the Mario games would be selling any less than they did on Wii? Or how about, "when Uncharted is on its 18th iteration, will it be selling as well as when it started?" Heck, the only reason Nintendo sold any Wii U's at all is probably the appeal of next-gen Mario, Zelda, and other old IPs.

 

[dobwal]

Superman and Batman have had decades of breaks between movies/TV series/games. There were Superman movies in the 1940/50s then nothing until the 1970s then two decades break. Batman was similar, movies in the 60s, several decades of break, then four movies in the 1980s/90s then a decade break.

Ask yourself what mainstream entertainment IPs have been relentlessly pushed for the last four decades and are still doing well? They may be some, but there certainly aren't many. Just look at what's popular at the cinema, or on TV, or in games and for the most part, it's relatively new or fresh. It's nice to see COD and BF sales down last year. It's still doing well but interest is waning. Some IPs do manage to work - Bond films for example, Star Trek is still doing well - albeit after over a decade of rest before the reboot.


It is but few IPs have been trotted out on such a consistent basis with no real break as Nintendo IPs. They give their IP no break at all; there is always a new Mario game being worked on and always a new Zelda game being worked on.

Superman and Batman have taken breaks from different forms of media but have been pushed continually through some form or another (film, tv, radio, video games and books) through out the decades. Batman (especially) and Superman as multimedia franchises make Mario look bush league in comparison. Batman has probably appeared in more video games than Mario.

You're right most IPs can't be sustained for decades. But Mario has been able to stay relevant for over 30 years. It has already shown staying power.

 

[goonergaz]

No, actually, I can't see how you are determining which data is relevant and which "means very little". I would argue that you could look at each comparison you listed (double WIIU, PS3, etc.) and learn something about the relative sales performance of the two products as long as you factor in the differences in the market conditions they were selling in. Just because comparing two different sets of data requires more thought than, "those numbers are bigger than these numbers" that doesn't make those comparisons impossible or meaningless.

I was just trying to say that just because it's tracking it now doesn't mean it will continue...that's a fact - nothing is certain, so to assume anything using the graph is pointless (or using it as an example to prove how well/badly a console is doing) - the bottom line here is PS4 outsells XBO ~ 2:1, if you spin that to make it sound like sales for XBO are great (like MS are), well it's all good an well - but then why take out Kinect? Why drop the price? Why bundle games (etc)...because they had too because sales are not as good as they projected.

 

[goonergaz]

^ And most of them are radically different games, if not from outright different genres altogether. This isn't like the Assassin's Creed or CoD or Uncharted situation where xxxx all changes besides the scenery.
And the problem with Sackboy as a video game mascot (assuming for a moment the concept of foisting mascots on the player base still had value in this day and age) is that he's not so much the star of a terrific game. He's the star of a rather unwieldy tool kit - or rather 3 largely identical tool kits - frequently used to make bad clones of Mario Bros world 1-1.

Ah, so when you said "Typically Nintendo releases a single big Mario game per console." you didn't mean that, you meant something else. I don't disagree about the CoD etc but likewise Ninty milk Mario...I'm surprised they've not done a Call to Mario Vs Zombies edition

 

[goonergaz]

That's quite a good argument. However, I'd counter that people bought these consoles to play these titles specifically.

It's an interesting counter, but of that were the case then why not get WiiU if Mario games are so great? (just a thought)

 

[Goodtwin]

I rocked the Wii the entire previous generation. I had contemplated buying a PS3 or 360, but I always felt like I had plenty to play. Metroid Prime Corruption was great, Resident Evil 4 Wii edition improved the game dramatically thanks to far superior controls, Mario Galaxy introduced a fresh ideas into the 3D Mario world and was close to 3D plat forming perfection, Dead Space Extraction was a cool throw back to an all but dead genre, Tiger Woods Golf with Wii Motion Plus was the best golfsim on any console ever, Goldeneye had fun multiplayer and the single player was loaded with nostalgia, Red Steel 2 was phenomenal, Price of Persia Forgotten Sands was an excellent, and even Call of Duty had a strong following on Wii. I could go on and on making a big list of great Wii games, but I think its obvious that if you didn't think the Wii had anything to play, its simply your taste differ significantly from the majority of people who were perfectly happy with the games they were buying for Wii. Im not wealthy, but you don't need to be in order to afford multiple consoles. Insinuating that people would only buy all those Wii games because they cant have a PS3 or 360 is pretty bogus in my opinion.

 

[dobwal]

It's an interesting counter, but of that were the case then why not get WiiU if Mario games are so great? (just a thought)

Because its one thing to spend $60 to play Mario and its another to spend $360 to play Mario. If Nintendo isn't providing enough incentives other than Mario games to encourage you to purchase the Wii U then the latter is the what you are faced with in terms of a buying decision.

 

[goonergaz]

If the brand is compelling enough you will pay the entrance fee - that's console exclusivity. I bought Xbox 360 just to play Gears and Halo, and Wii just...well, just because it'd be rude not to.

This gen I've gone for PS4 because I know I will like whatever ND does - the rest is gravey.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

If you give people no choice, which is almost how owning a Wii felt (I know, I owned one), you bought Mario whether you liked the IP or not.

There was in fact plenty of choice on the platform (I know, I owned one).

I detest Mario as a character and do not buy Mario games. I did occasionally play Mario Kart when friends brought it round, but never actually owned it.

Despite that I got years of solid, Mario-free use out of the machine. Boom Blox, Monkey Ball and Guitar Hero to name a few made the Wii the console of choice for my Friday night buddies. We had all 3 consoles available with huge libraries but Wii won out almost every time.

 

[Goodtwin]

If the brand is compelling enough you will pay the entrance fee - that's console exclusivity. I bought Xbox 360 just to play Gears and Halo, and Wii just...well, just because it'd be rude not to.

This gen I've gone for PS4 because I know I will like whatever ND does - the rest is gravey.

Your part of the PS4 minority though. The difference is that Wii U is only selling to people who really like Nintendo's first party software, and the rest is gravy for them. What is the percentage of people buying the PS4 just for Naughty Dogs games? I can guarantee you its a small percentage, and if Naughty Dogs games had to carry the console, it wouldn't be doing much better than Wii U. That's why PS4 is successful and Wii U isn't, because they have a much broader appeal. I would wager that 75% of the PS4/X1 userbase is there because of games like COD, Assassins Creed, Batman, and Madden, and not because of the exclusives.