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

[Deleted member 11852]

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?"

That would be interesting to observe but unless Nintendo go the way of SEGA, we'll never know. Nintendo's foray into mobile will be interesting to watch but the mobile market is as different as the Wii and PS3 markets.

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.

Just to be clear, I said great games. The Wii had tons of software but unfortunately there was a lot of 'shovelware' which I didn't buy, and judging by the game sales charts for last gen which were dominated by 360 and PS3 games, not many other people bought either. To illustrate here is Metacritic's list of Wii games which shows 13 with a score of 90% or higher. Here is the PS3 list with 52 games with a score of 90% or higher. This isn't even a quantity vs. quality comparison, it's a quantity of quality and choice comparison.

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?

I think a lot of the gamers that bought the Wii did so somewhat on faith, then were disappointed. I certainly was. Perhaps they like some quality Nintendo IP among their more mainstream games, as I like a bit of Zelda, but can't live on a staple diet of mostly Nintendo IP. I think those same disappointed gamers skipped Wii U and we are where we are.

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.

How many people chose to buy that Mario game and how many chose that Mario game because their parents/uncle/grandma wanted to buy them a present for their console and Mario was the least objectionable title for the platform?

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."

Harry Potter films are consistently highly rated but I don't want any more of them. Production quality helps but if you're tired of something, you're tired of it. But given the choice, many will take something over nothing.

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.

The Wii U hardware is behind the curve but Nintendo's portables have also been behind the curve for a few generations and it's not stopped them selling. Why has behind-the-curve hardware only suddenly been an issue for Nintendo? Isn't behind-the-curve hardware their thing? I don't think Uncharted would sell well after 17 games but equally Sony don't seem overly nostalgic with regard to their IPs, they seem keen to try new things which is why I own a PlayStation 4 and not a Wii U.

But if the number of people who bought a Wii U is indicative of the perceived value of Nintendo's IP, then that supports the position that appeal has waned. Maybe it'll change with the new Zelda. I love Zelda but then I've not played all the games - I'm still working through Link Between Worlds on the 3DS. Having said that there is no way I'm buying a Wii U for Zelda. I'd basically be buying the console for one game

 

[goonergaz]

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.

Well that's what I was trying to say.

 

[MrFox]

Heh. That reminds me of a few "friends" (using the term loosely) that I know. They still insist that the PS3 sold better in the US than the X360. And that anyone claiming otherwise is lying. BTW - they also believe in UFOs and the Illuminati controlling the world. They are certainly interesting people that have taken a few too many drugs during their lifetime.

I have "friends" who still think xbone have 3 stacked SoC. They also believe in God.

I was certainly trying to be funny, but my comment also had some truth to it regardless of internet nutjobs. If we ignore the business side (per the thread title), the number of people who enjoyed a console enough to be vocal about it years later legitimizes it's existence in console history and that mass of vocal consumers contribute to shape the industry, since they can't be ignored when designing a new console (Mattrick tried ignoring them, it didn't go well). There were unique aspects of that console which made it loved by a sizeable group.

Dreamcast, Gamecube, Amiga, Original Xbox, were successes despite both the business and market share failures. They had a strong fanbase and their unique features shaped later consoles and games.

While Ngage, Ouya, 3DO, CDi/CD32, NeoGeo, never got a sizeable fanbase, and they never influenced the industry.

 

[goonergaz]

Don't drag the CDi into this please...I love my CDi (still have it in the loft!)

 

[MrFox]

Okay, admittedly the CDi and CD32 were just Amiga 500 and Amiga 1200 in a different case. They inherited the Amiga fanbase as family members

 

[dobwal]

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.

So you conclude that everyone shares your buying habits.

My gaming library would be much smaller if every franchise I enjoyed playing and I am very much a fan required purchasing their own separate hardware. In fact, I would probably move back into PC gaming as I place wide diversity very far ahead of any specific franchise.

There are a lot of people who probably have no problem enjoying Mario as gravy. But not so inclined to invest in having Mario as the main course.

I'd bet the PS4 and XB1 would have a much harder time than the Wii U if their library was mostly Uncharted/Halo, derivatives like Halo Kart and Super SideKick Sully and literally almost no third party support.

 

[DrJay24]

A console is successful if it has enough fanboys on the internet to make it "look" successful.

It's that simple, really.

Or the corollary, it is unsuccessful if enough fanboys say it is so.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Okay, admittedly the CDi and CD32 were just Amiga 500 and Amiga 1200 in a different case. They inherited the Amiga fanbase as family members

You're confusing Commodore's CDTV with Philips' CDi.

 

[MrFox]

You're confusing Commodore's CDTV with Philips' CDi.

Oh crap! That's right!

They all look the same to me. A 68000, a CD drive... same thing.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Oh crap! That's right!

They all look the same to me. A 68000, a CD drive... same thing.

Yeah, Philips' wish they had Paula, Fat Agnes, Denise and a Copper in their box.

 

[mrcorbo]

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

While an important metric and in fact the *most* important metric, this is not the *only* metric by which XBOne's sales can be evaluated. And to borrow your wording, just because PS4 is outselling the XBOne 2:1 now doesn't mean that it will continue. Nothing is certain, after all.

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.

This is me being a Devil's Advocate, but that's not necessarily true. Even if MS considered their sales to be adequate or even good, if they believed that they could have even better sales by making certain moves without hurting profitability too much they would make those moves. Better sales are better sales regardless of how good your existing sales numbers are. In this case specifically, though, I do believe these moves were a reaction to poor customer response to their initial product offering.

I also continue to believe, however, that the current sales gulf between the PS4 and the XBOne has more to do with the PS4 selling exceptionally well than the XBOne selling disastrously poorly. And it's this argument that I am using the historical sales precedents to support.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Wii U hardware is behind the curve but Nintendo's portables have also been behind the curve for a few generations and it's not stopped them selling. Why has behind-the-curve hardware only suddenly been an issue for Nintendo?

Not 'behind the curve' but 'crap', as in offers little. The products that sell are the ones that serve a market. Wii sold on waggle. DS etc sold on battery life and tight controls in a portable form. PS4 sells on all round games and performance and price. Wii U doesn't offer much because the USP isn't anything special and it has no other redeeming features. But if Nintendo had released a decent platform with decent 3rd party support that sold plenty, and then released Mario, you still think they'd only have gotten a handful of million sales? I say that instead, the gamers who want to play Mario aren't willing to shell out on an almost still-born platform to enjoy it and Nintendo would be asking too much to rely solely on Mario et al. That doesn't diminish the value of Mario from what it is, which is a huge franchise with staying power. They're just not enough on their own to sell a $300 when you know you'll get little else and these titles will be few and far between.

 

[Goodtwin]

It makes you wonder what the price would need to be in order for many of these more casual Nintendo fans to consider buying a Wii U for those Nintendo exclusives? Would Wii U have a resurrection if the price dropped to $199, or even $149? What is the price that consumers will pay for a more limited offering?

 

[Nesh]

It makes you wonder what the price would need to be in order for many of these more casual Nintendo fans to consider buying a Wii U for those Nintendo exclusives? Would Wii U have a resurrection if the price dropped to $199, or even $149? What is the price that consumers will pay for a more limited offering?

Well the thing is, Nintendo fans already bought the console and it has reached stagnation. Those "casual Ninetndo fans" arent necessarily Nintendo fans per se. They are simply people who love to play casual Nintendo games on a console that is casual friendly enough.
The Wii was that console. Wii U is not that console. It is not casual friendly therefore the same franchises that were selling the Wii like hot cakes cant sell the Wii U much in the same manner that Nintendo franchises werent pushing Gamecube sales enough to make it a smash hit,
At this stage the Wii U's fanbase and potential buyers arent that different from Gamecube's.

 

[Sonic]

I can see why many would be irked with the tried and true method Nintendo has with its main franchises. It would be nice to see Nintendo grow up more and take on more mature themes and a whole slew of new characters to go with it. But at least Nintendo is consistent with their franchises with many of the games released being excellent. The WiiU's abysmal sales doesn't have much to do with the quality of Nintendo's games but more to do with the machine being a horrible concept and vastly underpowered for today's mainstream gaming. WiiU may be considered a failure because the hardware itself is undesirable. Maybe if they lowered the price to $99 and got rid of the tabcon for a regular controller it would sell well. They could sell the tabcon separately and make money from it being a peripheral.

The disparity in PS4 and XB1 are interesting, especially on a worldwide level. I feel the US market is still up for grabs but leans more toward Sony with each month passing. MS has done a wonderful job turning things around from the initial launch debale, but that's clearly not enough with Sony's excellent execution. I still think Sony could end up with a greater percentage of the market in the US this gen if demand stays high the way it is. That first price cut might just be the final nail in the coffin and a new onslaught of PS4 sales come.

As long as XB1 is profitable and remains a relevant brand then I would consider the machine successful. MS can sell less systems and be more profitable at the same time, especially if more people are making purchases from their ecosystem. I applaud them for doing a good job changing their attitudes and my perception of them regarding the handling of the XB1. If they're able to sell 65 million units this gen I think that would be decent enough, especially if billions in profits come along with that.

Sony doesn't have an option other than PS4 being a success, and so far they've had bases loaded hitting grand slams left and right other than The Order 1886 being a complete chore to experience. I really hope PS4 ends up making billions for them and even more profit than PS2 because they surely need it and are definitely earning it on the worldwide market. I've said in the past that I think PS4 can totally match PS! in sales and maybe even come close to PS2. And I do think there is some intrinsic value to the PS brand, what with having dominated its first two generations on the market and making a miraculous comeback after the hugely tarnished image at the beginning of PS3's life. Now on its 4th system the PS brand is as strong as ever, and most of that surely has to do with market dynamics and business decisions made by both Sony and the competition. But the power of the PS brand does have some effect. Now if they launched a weak ass system then I doubt they'd have the sales they are having either.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Not 'behind the curve' but 'crap', as in offers little. The products that sell are the ones that serve a market. Wii sold on waggle. DS etc sold on battery life and tight controls in a portable form. PS4 sells on all round games and performance and price. Wii U doesn't offer much because the USP isn't anything special and it has no other redeeming features. But if Nintendo had released a decent platform with decent 3rd party support that sold plenty, and then released Mario, you still think they'd only have gotten a handful of million sales? I say that instead, the gamers who want to play Mario aren't willing to shell out on an almost still-born platform to enjoy it and Nintendo would be asking too much to rely solely on Mario et al. That doesn't diminish the value of Mario from what it is, which is a huge franchise with staying power. They're just not enough on their own to sell a $300 when you know you'll get little else and these titles will be few and far between.

To add to that it didn't help that while the Wii-U tablet controller is interesting, it is incredibly unwieldy. Even if the waggle sticks of the Wii were gimmicky, they were easy to use and easy to hold. Neither of those things can be said about the Wii-U's tablet controller. Which is a huge knock against the machine for something targetted at a casual userbase. One that prefers easy to use, comfortable to hold, intuitive and uncomplicated controls.

It's a controller that is more suited to a "hard core" console, except that the "hard core" gamer doesn't often like gimmicks. It's a controller that appeals to no-one. Casuals don't like it due to the reasons above. The "core" gamers don't like it because it's gimmicky. And the console's existence was basically tied it. Meaning it appealed to no-one.

The fact that anyone even bought a Wii-U is a testament to the game franchises that Nintendo has. And even with that, it's a hard sell to Nintendo fans because that controller is so god-awful.

To put it another way for some of you on this forum.

If the PS4 had been designed around a tablet controller like the Wii-U. Would you still buy it just for the platform exclusives? I'm sure some of you would. But I'm also fairly certain that if they had done that, the PS4 would be selling much closer to Wii-U numbers than the current PS4 numbers, despite their exclusives.

Regards,
SB

 

[Sonic]

If a tabcon was a concept Sony launched PS4 with and it had decent grunt and 3rd party support I'd consider buying it. But with the experience I've had from WiiU it has turned me off from the concept. Sony would need to implement a far superior version. I'm just glad Sony has the option of allowing Remote Play on my cell phone, even if I can't quite do that right now. That alone can be huge.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Not 'behind the curve' but 'crap', as in offers little. The products that sell are the ones that serve a market. Wii sold on waggle. DS etc sold on battery life and tight controls in a portable form. PS4 sells on all round games and performance and price. Wii U doesn't offer much because the USP isn't anything special and it has no other redeeming features.

But what does this have to do with Mario sales? For a moment discount the Wii U because of it's install base and return to the list of Mario game sales you posted previously.

You mentioned New Super Mario Bros (2009) selling 28m on Wii. Impressive. Now look at Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2010), a game with a 97 metacritic score, which sold 7.4m on Wii. How do you explain that? Back to 2011 Super Mario 3D Land selling 9.27m on 3DS and in 2012 you have New Super Mario Bros. 2 selling 9m on 3DS. 3DS has clocked up 50m sales worldwide.

Back to Wii U and you have New Super Mario Bros. U selling 4m in 2012 despite the small install base size it was selling almost half what the last Wii game did. Platform size will limit the amount of games sold but Mario games have been dwindling in sales number even on platforms with 50 and 100+ million sales.

 

[goonergaz]

So you conclude that everyone shares your buying habits.

My gaming library would be much smaller if every franchise I enjoyed playing and I am very much a fan required purchasing their own separate hardware. In fact, I would probably move back into PC gaming as I place wide diversity very far ahead of any specific franchise.

There are a lot of people who probably have no problem enjoying Mario as gravy. But not so inclined to invest in having Mario as the main course.

I'd bet the PS4 and XB1 would have a much harder time than the Wii U if their library was mostly Uncharted/Halo, derivatives like Halo Kart and Super SideKick Sully and literally almost no third party support.

Yet people complain that PS4/XBO have a poor selection of software, nothing but better looking versions of rehashed titles (which apparently no-one cares about), nothing that 'stands out' and makes one of them a must have purchase - and here we are, with the PS4 making record sales and showing little signs of slowing up.

 

[goonergaz]

But what does this have to do with Mario sales? For a moment discount the Wii U because of it's install base and return to the list of Mario game sales you posted previously.

You mentioned New Super Mario Bros (2009) selling 28m on Wii. Impressive. Now look at Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2010), a game with a 97 metacritic score, which sold 7.4m on Wii. How do you explain that? Back to 2011 Super Mario 3D Land selling 9.27m on 3DS and in 2012 you have New Super Mario Bros. 2 selling 9m on 3DS. 3DS has clocked up 50m sales worldwide.

Back to Wii U and you have New Super Mario Bros. U selling 4m in 2012 despite the small install base size it was selling almost half what the last Wii game did. Platform size will limit the amount of games sold but Mario games have been dwindling in sales number even on platforms with 50 and 100+ million sales.

IIRC NSMB 2009 was a bundle which would help explain the difference.