Wii will rock you: How Nintendo's Wii is beating out Sony and Microsoft

[Natoma]

Shifty already covered most of the things I would have said, so I'll just add to the point that you comparing the PS2 that launched at a rather high price without offering anything radical new over the PS1 doesn't say much in this case.

1) The PS2 was a rather large graphical leap from PS1.
2) The PS2 launched at $299 in 2000. See my last post.
3) The PS2 had 100% backward compatibility with PS1.

The reason Wii is selling so well, is

a.) damn good price
b.) very fun and new experience
c.) it's offering something that won't be nearly as present on other consoles
d.) software that complements their new unique direction

a.) Good price, but not the only console to sell at that price, adjusted for inflation or not.
b.) The N64 brought us the 3D paradigm as well as analog control and a very low price, adjusted for inflation or not. It also had a built-in set of core gamers from the SNES days. Didn't save its sales.
c.) See N64.
d.) See N64 + Super Mario 64.

I also have no doubt that Wii is also riding on the success wave of their earlier innovative, somewhat unique and special handheld: the DS. At the price, the unique experience, I see it not only targeting the PS2 & Xbox crowd that just can't resist at that price and what it's offering, but that they're also targeting their handheld userbase - which there are millions of. Just ask yourself how big the handheld market is Nintendo holds - then consider the prce of those products and the age group of them. How can the Wii not be even considered by them? I know enough of them to see that they are the ones most excited about Wii. After all, it's the next step to the DS, while not being a handheld device.

If anything, I think that's where the biggest market is. Is it being bought by people that don't own a PS2, Xbox or GameCube. Maybe by some - but I really doubt it's a large part.

Again, the Gameboy line from Nintendo has sold hundreds of millions over the past 17 years, and yet those sales didn't save Nintendo's downward spiral with each successive generation until the Wii came along.

I don't think you can necessarily make the leap that the handheld translates to console sales. It just isn't historically supportable.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's a very difficult figure to try and estimate. It'll be far more apparent in a couple of years when the machine may be more widely adopted if it's reached a more mainstream group.

I see that Shifty and Phil get what the point I was trying to make, so at least somebody else sees the same possibilities and conditions that I do.

Shifty made the point perhaps better than I, and the result is that when people are looking at sales figures and trying to figure out how long the legs are for the Wii, the answer to the above question needs to be answered.

Because if the Wii is simply selling to gamers (and not a new market), and the only difference is that gamers are adopting it more quickly than previous consoles, that bit of information should definitely impact any forecasts on the lifespan of the Wii.

I would also like to point out that people who have DS's and even moreso people who have actually opened up their PC and changed their GPU, are gamers.

They aren't grandmothers or part of a market that didn't exist before.

I'm not a real big console gamer. I'm more than content to game on my PC when I feel the need. I didn't get a PS2 or Xbox until they were available for $149 last generation, and don't possess a Wii, 360, or PS3.

However, before 'switching' to PC gaming, I have owned a 2600, a 5200, SNES, a N64, a Genesis, and a PS1. (then nothing until the PS2 at $149)

If I go pick up a Wii, (provided I could ever find one), it would be because of its price and to try out the new controllers.

But I'm still a gamer. I'm not a 60 year old who wasn't part of the existing market.

The reason I don't have a 360 or PS3 is solely due to the cost of entry of those systems. Drop either to $199, and I'd buy them before a Wii. Why? Because of the difference in the audio/visual experience.

So the conclusion that I come to, is that without evidence to support the existence of a new market for the Wii, the sales are currently be motivated by price of entry and result from existing gamers.

Its very possible that the Wii is selling to the exact same demographic as the PS2, the Xbox, the Gamecube, the PS3 and the 360. It's just reaching the saturation point more quickly due to its price.

 

[Natoma]

Its very possible that the Wii is selling to the exact same demographic as the PS2, the Xbox, the Gamecube, the PS3 and the 360. It's just reaching the saturation point more quickly due to its price.

And yet just a few posts ago I showed that there were several consoles that launched at the same inflation adjusted price point as the Wii and didn't sell nearly as well. Two of which, SNES and N64, had a built in advantage of the last-gen Nintendo audience.

The pricing paradigm has existed in the past without the same level of success. So the only other factor left to us is that the Wii is reaching out to a non-traditional audience.

 

[Phil]

And yet just a few posts ago I showed that there were several consoles that launched at the same inflation adjusted price point as the Wii and didn't sell nearly as well. Two of which, SNES and N64, had a built in advantage of the last-gen Nintendo audience.

I simply don't quite agree with the parallel you are drawing here Natoma.

Time frame is a huge factor, as is competition. PS2 launched at a higher price than Wii with practically no competition around (unless you counter in Dreamcast) and hold it's high price of $300 for over a year until the first price drop and was seriously limited by production for a very long time, despite not offering anything new.

Wii came out, at a considerable cheaper price point than either competitors in the same time frame and offers something completely new!

Also, inflation may be a valid point, though I'm not so sure it holds much weight considering $300 is $300, regardless of inflation. It's psychological. I don't think many people are calculating inflation when they are buying consoles at certain price points. Hence, Wii might not be more expensive/cheaper than older consoles thanks to inflation, but it certainly is a lot cheaper in comparison to the competition TODAY.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

And yet just a few posts ago I showed that there were several consoles that launched at the same inflation adjusted price point as the Wii and didn't sell nearly as well. Two of which, SNES and N64, had a built in advantage of the last-gen Nintendo audience.

Sorry, but inflation adjusted price points are just bunk. It's something economists like to use and politicians like to put forth to back their respective agendas.

The common person doesn't care one lick about inflation adjusted price points. They have an idea in their mind of what a particular product is worth and that's all they are willing to spend.

I take it you're not from the US, because if you were, you would know that nobody pays attention to inflation adjusted prices. It's only absolute prices that matter. Which is why there's news story after news story about how expensive gas prices are in the US, despite the fact that adjusted for inflation gas is actually less expensive.

Inflation adjusted prices have no impact on consumer's perceptions or habits and are therefore irrelevant.

Which is why I ignored your previous comments.

 

[Natoma]

I simply don't quite agree with the parallel you are drawing here Natoma.

Time frame is a huge factor, as is competition. PS2 launched at a higher price than Wii with practically no competition around (unless you counter in Dreamcast) and hold it's high price of $300 for over a year until the first price drop and was seriously limited by production for a very long time, despite not offering anything new.

Wii came out, at a considerable cheaper price point than either competitors in the same time frame and offers something completely new!

The Genesis came out well before the SNES did and offered a SIGNIFICANT upgrade in every way over the NES, as did the TurboGrafx-16. Why didn't it dominate like the Wii has to date? What about the N64?

Hell, the Xbox 360 came out a year before the Wii and PS3, and the Wii has already closed the gap. The SNES didn't do that to the Genesis, nor did N64 do that to PS1. SMS didn't do that to NES, nor did Gamecube do that to PS2.

The Wii came in a year after the Xbox 360 and had a lower price, but it also had the smallest in-built fan base from the prior generation. No other console in history has had those three factors in play at once, and that's the point I was making with my analogy with the PS2.

The PS2 sold for $299. If you don't want to argue inflation, then that is within $50 of the Wii's launch price point. The Wii has also been ridiculously supply limited. However, the PS2 had the PS1 generation fan base, so if there were any situation where these kind of sales should've been seen, it was that console, and yet it didn't happen.

Also, inflation may be a valid point, though I'm not so sure it holds much weight considering $300 is $300, regardless of inflation. It's psychological. I don't think many people are calculating inflation when they are buying consoles at certain price points. Hence, Wii might not be more expensive/cheaper than older consoles thanks to inflation, but it certainly is a lot cheaper in comparison to the competition TODAY.

No, $300 isn't $300, regardless of inflation. $300 in 1950 was worth a hell of a lot more than $300 today, as $300 today is worth a hell of a lot more than $300 will be worth in 20 years. It is very important in the cost of consoles and the impact of pricing.

The point of bringing up the Wii's pricing was to compare it to previous consoles, but also to show that the price disparity between prior generations still existed, just as it does today.

And yet despite that price disparity, those consoles haven't sold gangbusters like the Wii has. It isn't just about price, because these conditions have existed before.

 

[Natoma]

Sorry, but inflation adjusted price points are just bunk. It's something economists like to use and politicians like to put forth to back their respective agendas.

The common person doesn't care one lick about inflation adjusted price points. They have an idea in their mind of what a particular product is worth and that's all they are willing to spend.

Inflation adjusted price points are absolutely crucial in determining the true value and cost of a console relative to the time it was released. How expensive a console "feels" provides no measurable metric whatsoever.

If you want to have a conversation regarding the cost of a console and how cheap it is relative to its competition and past generations, you HAVE to look at inflation adjusted figures. Otherwise you come to silly conclusions like "Neo Geo, 3DO, and PS3 cost the same when they came out in real dollars, thus we can't expect the PS3 to sell more than a couple of million consoles in its lifetime". Well no, that's not true. Why? Because in adjusted dollars, the Neo Geo actually cost over $1,017 and the 3DO was $941.

That provides a sanity check with respect to console comparisons that just isn't there when you try to go by "feel".

I take it you're not from the US, because if you were, you would know that nobody pays attention to inflation adjusted prices. It's only absolute prices that matter. Which is why there's news story after news story about how expensive gas prices are in the US, despite the fact that adjusted for inflation gas is actually less expensive.

Inflation adjusted prices have no impact on consumer's perceptions or habits and are therefore irrelevant.

Which is why I ignored your previous comments.

1) I am from the US. See Location. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

2) Adjusted for inflation, gasoline prices topped the high hit during the 1970s oil crisis several weeks ago. I don't know what news shows you've been watching, but this has been reported time and again when discussing this topic on CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC.

3) Actually, inflation adjusted prices do have an impact on consumer perceptions and habits. Notice that systems like the NES didn't storm out of the gate in terms of sales. Even the vaunted Atari 2600 only sold a couple of million units per year in its first 2-3 years, and that was considered a roaring success. Today? Those sales would be pathetic. Why were the sales so poor? Could it be that $199 back then was actually closer to $700 in today's dollars?

Now imagine yourself going out and spending $700 on a game console today, and you can see why the sales weren't that brisk. Oh that's right, we can draw a parallel. See PS3. The 2600 became the gargantuan success it became after several price drops. The same with every other console out there.

The only mass market console in the modern era that approached the PS3 in terms of pricing was the Saturn, and that bombed in sales as well. That was the whole point of noting all of those price points at launch, adjusted for inflation and not. To make valid comparisons.

In closing, I took the liberty of looking at historical sales figures for each of those consoles, adjusted for inflation, and adjusted for competition at the time. As I noted to Phil, there were several factors that the Wii had in terms of a seeming disadvantage that should've seen it bomb:

1) No substantial built-in fan base from the prior generation in comparison to the competition.

Analog: Xbox 360, Gamecube, Genesis, Dreamcast. The Genesis was far more successful than the SMS and competitive with the Super NES. Thus far the 360 has been far more successful than the original Xbox. The other two bombed however.

2) Launched at least 1 year after the competition.

Analog: Xbox, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Super NES. Notice that the only consoles to "win" were the PS2 and Super NES.

3) Launched with little developer support.

Analog: Nearly every console not named Super NES, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, or Xbox 360. Notice that the consoles that launched with little developer support lost against their primary competitors.

This last one may seem counter-intuitive, but take a look:

4) Priced lower than the (primary competition).

Analog: Xbox (PS2), Gamecube (PS2), Nintendo 64 (PS1), Genesis (SNES), Master System (NES), Atari 7800 (NES).

Notice a trend? Each of those consoles "lost" to the primary competition despite being priced significantly lower.

5) Significant Product innovation from prior generation

Analog: Xbox (Hard Drive, Xbox Live), Nintendo 64 (RAM Expansion, default Analog control + 4 player ports, 3D polygonal graphics), Super NES (Mode 7, Controller, Sony sound chip), PS1 & Saturn (default CD media, 3D polygonal graphics). I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

Other than the PS1 and Super NES, the rest lost against their primary competition. It's almost like consumers typically don't want something "different".

-------------------

In short, all of these "losing" factors played into the Wii to date, and yet the Wii is the only console to show the "winning" sales that it has shown against its primary competition (360 + PS3). When factoring in inflation price and everything else, they all fall away as "been there done that".

The only thing left is expansion of the market. Now if you want to only talk about "feel" and other things that can't be quantified, then we really can't have a discussion because we'll just go round and round.

However, if you want to have this discussion on hard facts, i.e. the only thing we really can talk about when comparing across the generations, then this is the way to go. And as stated before, the anecdotal news evidence bears this out.

The Wii has performed just like the iPod in fact. When the iPod came out, there were tons of MP3 players already out at the time. The iPod came along and opened up the market to the general consumer. There were tens of millions of people who had listened to MP3s, just as there are tens of millions of people who have played computer games, but wouldn't necessarily be called "gamers". Solitaire ring a bell?

And yet, like the iPod, the Wii brought those non-cores into the core market, and expanded it. That's the only way the iPod could've seen the meteoric sales it has seen, and similarly the Wii as well.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Just a little quibble, Natoma...Genesis was actually quite successful, so Sega most certainly had a large userbase when launching the Saturn. Didn't it launch 2 years earlier, also?

 

[Natoma]

Just a little quibble, Natoma...Genesis was actually quite successful, so Sega most certainly had a large userbase when launching the Saturn. Didn't it launch 2 years earlier, also?

I mentioned the Genesis a couple of times actually. Review my post again.

[EDIT]
Ah I understand what you're saying now. Yup, Saturn should not be in the first one. That should've been Dreamcast.

I'll edit that now.

The Saturn launched in 1995 along with the PS1, 1 year ahead of the N64. The Genesis launched 2 years before the SNES.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1016700&postcount=79

 

[Phil]

The Genesis came out well before the SNES did and offered a SIGNIFICANT upgrade in every way over the NES, as did the TurboGrafx-16. Why didn't it dominate like the Wii has to date? What about the N64?

Hell, the Xbox 360 came out a year before the Wii and PS3, and the Wii has already closed the gap. The SNES didn't do that to the Genesis, nor did N64 do that to PS1. SMS didn't do that to NES, nor did Gamecube do that to PS2.

I'm not sure I recall everything on the Genesis situation - I'm also not sure what bringing up the market as it was over 10 years ago proves. Yes, the situation was a very different one to todays, so why bring it up? From what I recall, the Genesis did reasonably well, but lacked the strong brand recognition Nintendo had. I'm also sure that the success of the GameBoy carried a lot of mindshare. Want more reasons?

The Wii came in a year after the Xbox 360 and had a lower price, but it also had the smallest in-built fan base from the prior generation. No other console in history has had those three factors in play at once, and that's the point I was making with my analogy with the PS2.

The PS2 sold for $299. If you don't want to argue inflation, then that is within $50 of the Wii's launch price point. The Wii has also been ridiculously supply limited. However, the PS2 had the PS1 generation fan base, so if there were any situation where these kind of sales should've been seen, it was that console, and yet it didn't happen.

As I already pointed out, the Wii has/d a lower price than the Xbox360. That's only one factor though - the other factor being that it offers something radically new. Despite it's "smallest in-built fan base from prior generation", the GameCube still carried over a marketshare of 25+ million, not to mention the millions of GameBoy users and the immense success of the DS. Given the DS also offered a rather new gaming experience with the stylus, the Wii at $250 is a bargain (the DS launched at $199 or $250?) with a completely new approach to gaiming. Why wouldn't it be attractive to the millions of DS owners? Why wouldn't it be attractive to the 25 million GameCube owners out there?

Want more factors? What about that, that there's practically no reason to buy a GameCube today? All those gamers probably moved over to the Wii now, given that software production has more or less completely came to a stop with the launch of Wii. Now compare that to the PlayStation situation which just saw the launch of high caliber games *after* the launch of the PS3? God War 2, Final Fantasy XII just to name a few. And then there's also the price difference: While PS2 cost as little as $299 at launch, the PS3 costs $499/$599! It's a little easier for an existing GameCube owner to invest $250 for a brand new Wii (that's a must buy because of the new approach to gaming anyway) than it is for a pre-existing PlayStation owner that is still finding reasons to play his 3-6 year old PS2 and doesn't quite want to spend that $499+ for a brand new PS3 that doesn't yet offer the games he really wants.

Again, I see little reason to believe that the Wii is catering to an absolutely new market out there. I just think the rate at which GameCube owners are upgrading to Wii and it being bought by some of their DS-market to be far higher than you are crediting. I also think there are quite a few X360 and PS3 owners or potential buyers that are getting the Wii simply because they see it as that perfect 2nd console. As I said, I find myself to be in a very similar position - at least until to the point that the PS3 comes down in price a little and I have that HD-TV. The price of the Wii helps.

No, $300 isn't $300, regardless of inflation. $300 in 1950 was worth a hell of a lot more than $300 today, as $300 today is worth a hell of a lot more than $300 will be worth in 20 years. It is very important in the cost of consoles and the impact of pricing.

No one cares or wonders anymore what $300 was worth in the 1950 - especially not Wii's primary market that's probably a little bit young to consider. Heck, I don't even know what $300 was worth 10 years ago overhere, so why should the average consumer think different? Todays situation is as follows: Wii costs $250. Xbox360 $299-$399, PS3 $499-$599. People probably know what they spent on the console last generation, but beyond that, I'm not sure they do. Inflation certainly isn't on their mind.

And yet despite that price disparity, those consoles haven't sold gangbusters like the Wii has. It isn't just about price, because these conditions have existed before.

I never said it was just about price - I said, the price helps. You should read my posts more carefully Natoma. I'm beginning to repeat myself and I don't like doing that.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Want more factors? What about that, that there's practically no reason to buy a GameCube today? All those gamers probably moved over to the Wii now, given that software production has more or less completely came to a stop with the launch of Wii.

No, because the Wii hasn't sold 22 million units yet. Also, if you were a big Gamecube fan, there aren't a whole lot of reasons to buy a Wii yet other than Virtual Console. There's no Mario Kart, Galaxy isn't out yet, there's nothing to compare to Timesplitters, Zelda came out on Gamecube, and so on. There were actually more compelling reasons to upgrade from N64 to Cube.

the GameCube still carried over a marketshare of 25+ million

I see you still buy into the "install base" myth. Consoles are not Windows PCs! An old console is simply not an install base for a new console. Most people don't continue to play their old games, and you can't run the new software on old hardware. You have to in some sense win your old fans all over again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see you still buy into the "install base" myth. Consoles are not Windows PCs! An old console is simply not an install base for a new console.

Though that's basically true, it does represent an IP/franchise base. You can count the existing GC owners as Mario fans, for example, who will buy into the existing Mario franchise. Or at least part of them will anyway. That's why MGS4 going cross-platform is considered a big deal, because it's a reason some people will buy a PS3 as a sequel to otheir other PlayStation(s). All things being equal, people will stick to the same hardware vendor in order to get the same games which caused them to buy from that hardware vendor last gen. Of course all things aren't equal, but it's still one factor.

As Wii is BC with GC, there will be those wanting a new console experience who see the Wii as an upgrade path to their current software library.

 

[Natoma]

I'm not sure I recall everything on the Genesis situation - I'm also not sure what bringing up the market as it was over 10 years ago proves. Yes, the situation was a very different one to todays, so why bring it up? From what I recall, the Genesis did reasonably well, but lacked the strong brand recognition Nintendo had. I'm also sure that the success of the GameBoy carried a lot of mindshare. Want more reasons?

The console industry as we know it was created in 1984 Phil. Nearly everything after that has been a derivation of what has come before it. So it is quite easy and useful to compare the generations.

1) The Genesis took roughly just under half of the overall console marketshare from Nintendo. However it launched with a 2 year lead so its performance post-SNES wasn't particularly strong.

2) The handheld market has never EVER affected the console market. Nintendo has utterly and completely dominated the handheld market since day 1, and yet they've seen nothing but dwindling returns in the console market. That is, until the launch of the Wii.

You can give more reasons, but if they're as good as the ones you've given thus far, it would be kind of a waste of time.

As I already pointed out, the Wii has/d a lower price than the Xbox360. That's only one factor though - the other factor being that it offers something radically new. Despite it's "smallest in-built fan base from prior generation", the GameCube still carried over a marketshare of 25+ million, not to mention the millions of GameBoy users and the immense success of the DS. Given the DS also offered a rather new gaming experience with the stylus, the Wii at $250 is a bargain (the DS launched at $199 or $250?) with a completely new approach to gaiming. Why wouldn't it be attractive to the millions of DS owners? Why wouldn't it be attractive to the 25 million GameCube owners out there?

1) As I've already countered, a lower price has by and large not been a predictor of success. Stop using that canard please.

2) The N64 offered a radically new controller and experience over the SNES. From Analog controls to Rumble Pack to 4 player ports built in to Super Mario 64. It also had a carryover marketshare of +40 million from the SNES generation.

3) The GameBoy was also just as dominant back then as it is now, even moreso actually when you look at the fact that the DS has the PSP to contend with today, when nothing came close back then. And again, that didn't stop NES->SNES->N64->GC sales from declining in each generation, by a rather large margin. 60m->40m->30m->20m.

Quite a nasty drop.

Handheld market != Console market.

Again, please stop using that canard.

Want more factors? What about that, that there's practically no reason to buy a GameCube today? All those gamers probably moved over to the Wii now, given that software production has more or less completely came to a stop with the launch of Wii. Now compare that to the PlayStation situation which just saw the launch of high caliber games *after* the launch of the PS3? God War 2, Final Fantasy XII just to name a few. And then there's also the price difference: While PS2 cost as little as $299 at launch, the PS3 costs $499/$599! It's a little easier for an existing GameCube owner to invest $250 for a brand new Wii (that's a must buy because of the new approach to gaming anyway) than it is for a pre-existing PlayStation owner that is still finding reasons to play his 3-6 year old PS2 and doesn't quite want to spend that $499+ for a brand new PS3 that doesn't yet offer the games he really wants.

Like all 25m Xbox gamers moved to the 360 once the Xbox development abruptly died out? MS states that half their sales are from original Xbox owners. That means that 20% of original Xbox owners have upgraded. The facts aren't exactly supporting your argument here Phil.

How about how all NES owners moved to the SNES? Or SNES to N64? Or N64 to GC? The only console movement that you can state recaptured its audience with any level of certainty was PS1-->PS2 due to the fact that the PS2 outsold the PS1, which had a rather significant base of ownership in and of itself.

SMS-->Genesis doesn't count btw. The SMS install base was minimal, so it was definitely more than core Sega buyers who purchased the system, a lot more.

Again, I see little reason to believe that the Wii is catering to an absolutely new market out there. I just think the rate at which GameCube owners are upgrading to Wii and it being bought by some of their DS-market to be far higher than you are crediting.

Because as I've stated before, Nintendo has lost massive marketshare in each generation. And the handheld market has never corrolated with the console market. If it did, the PSP would be running roughshod over the DS like the PS2 ran roughshod over the GC and the PS1 ran roughshod over the N64.

Actually, wait a sec. That's why people were saying the PSP would run roughshod over the DS. Because everyone was corrolating the handheld and console markets. Big mistake.

I also think there are quite a few X360 and PS3 owners or potential buyers that are getting the Wii simply because they see it as that perfect 2nd console. As I said, I find myself to be in a very similar position - at least until to the point that the PS3 comes down in price a little and I have that HD-TV. The price of the Wii helps.

This kind of crossover occurred in prior generations Phil. The N64 for example was $100 cheaper than the PS1. The Genesis was $50 cheaper than the SNES when it launched. The GC was $100 cheaper than the PS2 when the GC launched. Why didn't those owners pick up those consoles and push sales to never before seen heights?

In EVERY generation, console sales fall flat after christmas launch, and yet the Wii's sales have been accelerating in every month heading into summer. That's certainly atypical behavior, and cannot be explained as cross pollination. That factor existed before.

Look, the whole point of listing the factors out is to find the ones that existed before in some combination, and thus rule them out because of that.

Going through that process of logic leads one to only one conclusion. The Wii has expanded the gaming market and created a paradigm shift. Just like the NES did. Just like the PS1 did.

No one cares or wonders anymore what $300 was worth in the 1950 - especially not Wii's primary market that's probably a little bit young to consider. Heck, I don't even know what $300 was worth 10 years ago overhere, so why should the average consumer think different? Todays situation is as follows: Wii costs $250. Xbox360 $299-$399, PS3 $499-$599. People probably know what they spent on the console last generation, but beyond that, I'm not sure they do. Inflation certainly isn't on their mind.

You're looking at this in completely the wrong way. The point is the figure out what price point was comparable to someone back then as to now.

For example, the Atari 2600 sold at $199 when it launched in 1977. To you and me today, that doesn't sound so bad. But what was $199 back then to a consumer? It was almost $700 in today's dollars. Now put that into our perspective, and you begin to understand why the 2600 only sold a couple of million units in its first two years.

Whether it's $199 in 1978 dollars ($700 today) or $599 today, consumers blanche at a certain level of pricing relative to their earning power.

The sweet spot in terms of adjusted inflation dollars for ANY console has been $250 or less. THAT is the only way to compare pricing across generations, and to fully understand the impact of price on the console market.

Until you learn that, you'll never be able to participate in this discussion on equal footing with me.

I never said it was just about price - I said, the price helps. You should read my posts more carefully Natoma. I'm beginning to repeat myself and I don't like doing that.

I never said you did. But you've certainly prescribed an inordinate amount of cause to it while stating at the same time that it's just not possible that the Wii has opened the gaming market.

Your arguments have been:

1) It's got to be price. I've shot that down.

2) It's got to be existing gamers buying the console. I've shot that down.

3) It's got to be console innovation. I've shot that down.

4) It's got to be the DS handheld market. I've shot that down.

Care to try any others?

 

[Natoma]

Though that's basically true, it does represent an IP/franchise base. You can count the existing GC owners as Mario fans, for example, who will buy into the existing Mario franchise. Or at least part of them will anyway. That's why MGS4 going cross-platform is considered a big deal, because it's a reason some people will buy a PS3 as a sequel to otheir other PlayStation(s). All things being equal, people will stick to the same hardware vendor in order to get the same games which caused them to buy from that hardware vendor last gen. Of course all things aren't equal, but it's still one factor.

The NES and SNES were the kings of exclusive games and it didn't exactly save the N64 generation.

For example, I bought the original GameBoy and adored it. However, I didn't buy another one until Gameboy Advance, and then DS Lite. There were tons of great games that I missed in between that I count myself a fan of. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Gradius, FF, Dragon Warrior, etc.

So, I agree with you that it's a factor, but I think that as you said, it's only one. People associate games with a particular console, and they buy that console in anticipation of those games. But that doesn't mean that you have an inherent base when it comes to sales.

As Wii is BC with GC, there will be those wanting a new console experience who see the Wii as an upgrade path to their current software library.

It certainly helps, but I think that's a smaller factor than you realize, at least when it comes to Nintendo consoles. No nintendo console has been bc before, so that's not something that long time Nintendo fans would've been used to.

That's why the lack of bc from PS2-->PS3 was such a big deal, because PS owners were conditioned from the PS1-->PS2 generation to expect that. It's also why if the next generation Xbox isn't bc with Xbox 360 at the very least, you'll have a lot of pissed off MS fans.

Now that Wii has established the paradigm of bc, Wii 2 better have it. But for now, I don't think it makes a big difference.

 

[avaya]

Your arguments have been:

1) It's got to be price. I've shot that down.

2) It's got to be existing gamers buying the console. I've shot that down.

3) It's got to be console innovation. I've shot that down.

4) It's got to be the DS handheld market. I've shot that down.

Care to try any others?

You haven't really, since the whole discussion is ultimately rather pointless. There haven't been a sufficient number of console generations to accurately discern the impact of any of these factors.

Some consoles were so ridiculously hyped that they would win outright: PS2.

Some consoles just came in at the right place at the right time: Wii. I view it just like the iPod, they came in at a time when the market leaders were either ignorant to the current trends or attempting to force a standard onto the consumer.

Apart from Japan there is no solid evidence that the gaming market has expanded in any significant way. Wii is orthogonal to the traditional gaming market, but how much of the new market it has actually captured is highly debatable. I do believe its the large PS2 casual base that's lapping it up.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hang on Natoma. I'm right with you on your refutation of Phil's points, and can see the reasoning fine, and log this thread as good discussion on the whole. But I can't go along with this conclusion...

Your arguments have been:
1) It's got to be price. I've shot that down.
2) It's got to be existing gamers buying the console. I've shot that down.
3) It's got to be console innovation. I've shot that down.
4) It's got to be the DS handheld market. I've shot that down.

Care to try any others?

You seem to be treating each point as a standalone reason for Wii's success, ignoring the primary point of Phil's that all these facets are (or at least might be)affecting Wii's sales. Sometimes multiple effects come to bare. eg. A cancer is researched. A gene is found in all sufferes of that cancer, but as there are also people with that gene who don't develop cancer, we can rule that out as the cause. A study of lifestyles shows all the cancer sufferers drink 4+ coffees a day, but more research finds other people who drink as much and even more coffee yet don't develop this cancer. That rules that out as a potential cause. That's your reasoning above, right? But in reality, the gene represents a susceptibility to developing the cancer, which is initialised by the drinking of the coffee. Two factors come into play. Considering each one separately is oversimplifying the problem.

We can take the four points above and see that each adds a small amount of 'force' towards an outcome. There's a rock to be moved - to achieve massive demand from launch of a new console. It requires 400N to move that rock. Each of the points Phil has raised is a force less than that needed, we can agree, looking at history. Each on their own is not enough. Even doubled up they're not enough. But with all four factors coming into play at the same time, working together they provide a stronger force towards that outcome. A low price provides 100N of force to shoft the rock. Gamers looking for something new is another 100N. A radical control scheme and synergy with a radical handheld make up the rest.

These four factors have never been present in the history of consoles before. There has never before been a console with a supremely different controller at a low launch price, at the same time the handheld sector has mirrored it's unconventional control scheme, at a point in history where existing gamers have had 10+ years of the same thing and might be looking for a change. What you're suggesting is the above factors have no influence at all, and the 400N force needed to get the rock moving is coming solely from people who haven't gamed before. That to me seems more a stretch than Phil's theory. Not least because we know Wii has appeal to existing gamers, which would still result in record breaking sales even if only half of people buying Wii are existing gamers.

 

[Natoma]

These four factors have never been present in the history of consoles before. There has never before been a console with a supremely different controller at a low launch price, at the same time the handheld sector has mirrored it's unconventional control scheme, at a point in history where existing gamers have had 10+ years of the same thing and might be looking for a change.

Nintendo 64? Now, the gameboy at the time certainly didn't have an unconventional control scheme, but it was supremely dominant nonetheless.

What you're suggesting is the above factors have no influence at all, and the 400N force needed to get the rock moving is coming solely from people who haven't gamed before. That to me seems more a stretch than Phil's theory. Not least because we know Wii has appeal to existing gamers, which would still result in record breaking sales even if only half of people buying Wii are existing gamers.

You misunderstand my point. I know Phil has stated that these factors are in play. What I did was list out all of the factors he stated were in play and that I had shot them all down. Not that they are items on an island.

As I mentioned just before, the Nintendo 64 had the same confluence of those factors, and it got obliterated by the PS1. It was $100 cheaper, had 60m SNES owners, had an enormous amount of innovation that went beyond anything the other consoles were offering at the time in terms of the control interface, and had a dominant handheld to draw gamers to its clutches.

And yet it failed. That's all I was saying before when I made that list. I also stated in a prior post that the Wii had several factors that should've seen it fail, not succeed. 1) It came out a year later. 2) It had piss poor developer support out the gate. 3) It was actually a lot cheaper.

Counter-intuitive, yea, but it seems to be the case.

Actually, check this out from that long post:

Look, the whole point of listing the factors out is to find the ones that existed before in some combination, and thus rule them out because of that.

I talk about combination of those factors.

Also,

In closing, I took the liberty of looking at historical sales figures for each of those consoles, adjusted for inflation, and adjusted for competition at the time. As I noted to Phil, there were several factors that the Wii had in terms of a seeming disadvantage that should've seen it bomb:

 

[Natoma]

You haven't really, since the whole discussion is ultimately rather pointless. There haven't been a sufficient number of console generations to accurately discern the impact of any of these factors.

There have been 5 generations in the modern era of gaming spanning 20 years. If you count pre-Nintendo gaming, that'd be 7 generations spanning 30.

How many do you need in order to come to logical conclusions?

Some consoles were so ridiculously hyped that they would win outright: PS2.

N64: Lost to PS1
Genesis: Lost to SNES
Sega CD: Lost, period
PSP: Losing to DS
PS3: Losing to 360 and Wii.

Yea the PSP is a handheld. Just saying that hype != sales.

Some consoles just came in at the right place at the right time: Wii. I view it just like the iPod, they came in at a time when the market leaders were either ignorant to the current trends or attempting to force a standard onto the consumer.

Apart from Japan there is no solid evidence that the gaming market has expanded in any significant way. Wii is orthogonal to the traditional gaming market, but how much of the new market it has actually captured is highly debatable. I do believe its the large PS2 casual base that's lapping it up.

Look at the sales of the Wii and compare them against the historical sales of consoles. The only consoles that significantly expanded the market before the Wii were the PS1 and the NES.

In fact, there may be another corrolation there that Shifty brought up tangentially. Shifty, you made the 10+ year remark. Well, NES came out almost 10 years after the last dominant console, the 2600. The PS1 came out almost 10 years after the NES. The Wii has come out a little more than 10 years after the PS1.

Maybe it's just coincidence, but who knows.

[EDIT]
Btw, I made an iPod comparison: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1017432&postcount=87

 

[avaya]

There have been 5 generations in the modern era of gaming spanning 20 years. If you count pre-Nintendo gaming, that'd be 7 generations spanning 30.

How many do you need in order to come to logical conclusions?

Sample size of 24 generations, if we wanted to be pedantic, 5 or 7 are still such low numbers.

It's not that your conclusions are logical, it's just that they are likely to be inaccurate.

Yea the PSP is a handheld. Just saying that hype != sales.

To be honest with you I agree, however PS2 still remains the most hyped console of all time in my opinion. PS3 around the time of E3 2005 was rivalling it, but PS2 was consistently on another stratosphere of ludicrous claims. The way it sold with no credible software whatsoever for its first year was nigh on incredible.

Look at the sales of the Wii and compare them against the historical sales of consoles. The only consoles that significantly expanded the market before the Wii were the PS1 and the NES.

I would say PS2 has really expanded EMEA and PAL as a whole. Your statement would be accurate for NTSC regions.

Ipod comparison

I'd venture to say it's a great comparison! However I don't think Ipod's success was attracting a "non-core" audience because it relates to a shift in the Western audio CE sector.

Ipod's success was the ease of use and sudden seductive brand power that Apple managed to capture. People buy them today as fashion accessories, moreover the latent music piracy (not downloading but ripping friends CDs) that existed in the industry finally had a player that could cater for its popularity far more easily.

 

[Natoma]

Sample size of 24 generations, if we wanted to be pedantic, 5 or 7 are still such low numbers.

Given the rate of technological advance per generation, I disagree. But hey, to each his own. You don't think 5 generations in 20 years is a large enough sample. I do. heh.

It's not that your conclusions are logical, it's just that they are likely to be inaccurate.

Well that's a rather snarky comment with no basis in reality.

To be honest with you I agree, however PS2 still remains the most hyped console of all time in my opinion. PS3 around the time of E3 2005 was rivalling it, but PS2 was consistently on another stratosphere of ludicrous claims. The way it sold with no credible software whatsoever for its first year was nigh on incredible.

I would say PS2 has really expanded EMEA and PAL as a whole. Your statement would be accurate for NTSC regions.

PS1 sold around 110m consoles. PS2 sold around 120m. Dunno if that's necessarily the case avaya. I'd argue that it held onto its core market and slightly added on to the last generation's totals.

Ipod comparison

I'd venture to say it's a great comparison! However I don't think Ipod's success was attracting a "non-core" audience because it relates to a shift in the Western audio CE sector.

Ipod's success was the ease of use and sudden seductive brand power that Apple managed to capture. People buy them today as fashion accessories, moreover the latent music piracy (not downloading but ripping friends CDs) that existed in the industry finally had a player that could cater for its popularity far more easily.

What I'm saying is that people who wouldn't consider a MP3 player at that time were non-core. That apple got them to buy a MP3 player expanded the market and changed the definition of who owned MP3 players back then. Back then, I saw techies and other people interested in the latest and greatest as owners. Now I see grandmothers with iPods.

That's what I refer to as non-cores. Those people who in the prior paradigm would not consider a certain product who are now buying.