Topic: Steven Kent: "Nintendo is like a wonderful old friend who has a drinking problem."

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
My main point though was that PS2 did have a massive drought in the beginning as did Microsoft with Xbox 360, so it isn't fair to say that Sony and MS are immune to the "drought" statement.

That's exactly right. The thing is that the PS2 drought took place when the system's only competition was the Dreamcast, which sadly continued to struggle and then died. By the time the Xbox and Gamecube hit the market, the PS2's games were coming out in a steady stream, so Sony lucked out in the drought happening when it mattered least for them.

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
The problem is 360 sales aren't even that high so far, and that's not just in Japan.  As a recent study quoted by Nintendo suggested, DS has been responsible for almost all of the industry growth in North America this year - or maybe it was worldwide, but either way the point is that 360 is making a very small impression on the industry so far.

Yeah, I'm surprised about that as well. I thought the Xbox had grown its market enough that it would be doing pretty well at this stage, but that head start hasn't really paid off at all. I think a lot of people who might fall into the 360 crowd, though, are still waiting for the PS3, and it could possible be seeing the price in person that finally pushes them over.

[couchmonkey]

You know, when I recently heard an estimate that Microsoft lost $4 billion on Xbox, I stopped worrying about Xbox as much.  I mean, the only reason Xbox "proved" that three consoles could co-exist in one generation is because Microsoft bought a place at the table - a very expensive place that only netted them something like 15% of the marketshare.  Nobody else could have done that.

Now, like the PS2, 360 is going to look a lot better this Christmas than it did for the rest of the year.  It was a really slow first year if you look at it (again, like the PS2).  That may turn things around for Microsoft, and certainly a lot of the "wait and see" crowd will jump on the 360 bandwagon this Christmas.  That said, from a publisher's perspective, Xbox 360 still hasn't got the lead to make it a forgone conclusion that most of your games should be ported to 360, as was the case for PS2.  

[Smash_Brother]

For being the first into the market, the 360 hasn't captured nearly the lead it should have.

Halo 3 might change that, though. We'll see.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Halo 3 might change that, though. We'll see.

That's not until November of 2007 at the earliest going by recent reports, which is a ways off versus the launch of the other two.

One thing that people have to consider is that the PS2 had Grand Theft Auto III vs. the launch of the Xbox and Gamecube. That right there pretty much won them the generation. The early launch was important to Sony, but their dominace was also due heavily to a lot of key games hitting right when the other two hit the market.

The 360 has the early head start, but I just don't see a killer lineup to fight off the launch of two systems for it. Like I said, though, a lot of the PS3 crowd will probably jump ship this Christmas, and the 360 will probably cater most to the "GTA" enthusiasts who will leave due to price. So Microsoft really lucked out as they could have been in huge trouble had the PS3 price actually been competitive.

[Smash_Brother]

I do count Sony's victory as mostly luck, but this time, they don't have GTA to be their bread and butter in the US so I wonder what they plan to do.

[Pittbboi]

I think people are missing the point with the "PS3 is cheap for what it gives you" statement.

I don't think that he is directly comparing the two consoles and saying the PS3 is cheap. But he does have a point. Yeah, PS3 is expensive as all hell for a gaming console, but that's not all you're getting. You're getting huge technological advancements since the PS3 is most likely to be the most powerful console of the bunch, and you're getting a blu-ray player, which by itself would cost a few hundred more than the actual PS3 does. Now, granted, blu-ray doesn't seem to be winning over HD-DVD, so eventually that blu-ray player may prove to be quite worthless. However, *right now* it's a very expensive piece of technology to come packed in with the PS3. So with the PS3 you're getting an assload of features that prices the console at a lot more than what people are going to actually be paying for it. $600 is freaking expensive, but NOT if you catalog everything you're getting with it.

The Wii, on the other hand, is priced higher than most people thought it would be considering what it is, and what's their justification for it? WiiSports? Please. I stand by my opinion that, while WiiSports is fun, it is in no way worth the 49.99 they claim it is. And I simply refuse to believe that the wiimote justifies the cost, either. It's a fun, unique controller, but it's not the $60 piece of heaven-sent hardware that people want to believe it is.

I value the Wii at a lot more than I do the PS3, but that's because I love Nintendo and I feel the Wii has a lot more potential than their last two consoles ever did. But, I'm not going to kid myself into buying that "it has to be $249.99" BS. Especially considering how shadily they sprung that on us. They priced it that way because they knew they could. Sony, on the other hand, is selling their console at a loss.

 

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Yeah, PS3 is expensive as all hell for a gaming console, but that's not all you're getting.

The same could be said for the PSP. Problem is that the non-gaming elements didn't do much to attract people to then buy games for it, causing for Sony to have good system sales but piss poor game sales which leaves them in an even worse financial situation considering they lose money with the system sales and then aren't making it up with games.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
...and you're getting a blu-ray player, which by itself would cost a few hundred more than the actual PS3 does. Now, granted, blu-ray doesn't seem to be winning over HD-DVD, so eventually that blu-ray player may prove to be quite worthless. However, *right now* it's a very expensive piece of technology to come packed in with the PS3. So with the PS3 you're getting an assload of features that prices the console at a lot more than what people are going to actually be paying for it. $600 is freaking expensive, but NOT if you catalog everything you're getting with it.

The question is: who actually thinks a Blu-Ray player is worth $1,000? Better question: who thinks a Blu-Ray player is worth $600? $500? $400?

I just can't fathom people who are banking on one of the formats in the current medium war. Let's break it down: you have two different formats, each with "exclusives" from studios that won't appear on the other, and you expect the consumer to dump DVDs, which will have both, for a format that has larger storage and looks better, only if they have a HD TV? Not even going to mention that the discs themselves cost $10+ more...

Laserdisc failed horribly, but at least everyone could enjoy the improved picture quality without a better TV (and audio if they had the set up) and it had the initial support from most major studios... and even then it failed to take on VHS in every location but Japan (where it was cheaper). There seems to be this mentality that "oh, new format, well one of them has to replace DVD then!" Afraid that's not the case, and history has shown with VHS that you have to have a great offering for most to adpot you over the current choice.

[wandering]

Jeezy peezy parcheesi. Every console maker sells their console at the highest price they think the market can bear. Why are most consoles sold at a loss? Because they know the market is looking for super high quality graphics, with simple set-up, at low cost. They need to sell at a loss to get customers. Nintendo realized this wasn't true for this generation - that the other console makers, by following the standard business model, were making a mistake. They saw that huge costs were only leading to very minor graphical improvements. They realized they shouldn't go down that path. By doing so they save themselves money, yes, but they also save us money too.

Is that really what we're so upset about here? Nintendo making money? Is Nintendo supposed to be a charity? Are we supposed to hate them for getting more money to spend on advertisements to make the console more popular? For getting more money to court third-party developers?

Instead of getting upset about that, maybe we should be grateful Nintendo is a company that actually takes risks, and spends large amounts of money developing unproven technologies...even while most successful companies simply steel others' ideas.

[Smash_Brother]

From everything I've heard, most of the heavy-hitting studios are supporting both formats, and HD-DVD players are already on the market and are MUCH cheaper.

How many people bought a PSP for the UMD movies?

Exactly.

[Ian Sane]

I like the drinking problem analogy.  It makes sense.  Nintendo has problems and when I look at the Wii or even the DS I don't really see them solved.  I see little fixes here and there but there's been a core problem since day one that has never been addressed.  Nintendo is greedy to a degree that even from a big business perspective it seems somewhat super-villiany.  They will gladly jerk around their customers and third party developers for a few extra dollars.  That is why they lost the market leader spot in the first place and that is why the only way they'll ever regain it is if the competition screws up big time.  The N64 cartridges were just the excuse for everyone to ditch the dictator.  The only reason they haven't been completely abandoned is because they're incredibly competent at making games.  Yeah our friend has problems but the good times are REAL good times.

I do think Kent is being a little overboard on the cost of the Wii.  I think it's too expensive but don't think it should be $150.  He is right about the PS3 being worth the costs.  If you tallied everything up you could explain the $600 price.  You couldn't do that with the Wii.  Part of the total would involve the "gouge you because we think we can" fee.  My problem with the PS3 isn't that it is too expensive for what it is but that it is too fancy for the mass market crowd that made the Playstation popular in the first place.  It's worth every penny, it just isn't the product most people want.  They're trying to sell a sports car and all we want is a commuter car.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
From everything I've heard, most of the heavy-hitting studios are supporting both formats, and HD-DVD players are already on the market and are MUCH cheaper.

HD-DVD:

Universal
Paramount
Warner Bros

Blu-Ray:

Sony Pictures
Paramount
Warner Bros
MGM
Disney
20th Century Fox

In respect to studio support, Blu-Ray has the better offering, but you are still having to pick and choose between the two and it makes both formats less ideal. Even with full studio support behind each I think both would still faulter against DVDs, but it being divided is pretty much suicidal to both new formats.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Again I say whether something is worth it or not is all about perception, I think the new game experiences I am getting for Wii is worth the 250$. Maybe the parts inside didn't cost 250$ (though that is still in debate) but the worth that I think I will get out of it will more than make up what I will be getting out of the PS3 with features I DO NOT WANT along with not much to look forward to in games, when Afrika is the game I am most interested in, there is a problem. Again I point out that Nintendo is trying to differentiate itself trying to make the Wii unique and that strategy usually does not give you a cheap price tag because of development along with marketing costs. MS and Sony are more going for the cost-less strategy where there is little innovation but you are getting more in the way of features for your buck.

[GoldenPhoenix]

About Blu-ray and HD-DVD I heard something about a developer creating a chip that will allow you to use both formats. PErsonally I think that is where this will head, they will end up combining and the silly fight will be over with.

[couchmonkey]

I read the whole article, two things:

1. On pricing: The problem is Kent is looking at it from the perspective of manufacturing cost vs. retail price.  Consumers don't normally ask how much the product cost to make in the first place.  Consumers ask what they're getting for the money.  PS3 is giving them improved graphics, plus Blu-Ray and a hard drive, for $500-$600.  Wii is giving them motion-controlled games and some unique online features for $250.  To me, at least, Wii is a more compelling product without even taking price into account.  Yes, I'd pay $600 for Wii: I'm bored with graphics. The price of Wii controllers may turn out to be an issue, but I don't know if people factor that in when they make the initial purchase.

Edit: Unless the general public thinks Wii is a ripoff because the graphics haven't improved, then the only people that will ever feel it's a bad price are hardcore types who understand what the manufacturing costs are like.

2. PS2 vs. Xbox 360:  Kent claims that PS2 "limped" into the holiday season with a 2 million unit lead.  I don't know how he's calculating that figure, but according to Sony's own data, it had shipped 20.04 million units as of October 2001, while Microsoft has sold 5 million Xbox 360 units as of June, and hopes to sell 10 million by the end of the year.  Sony's numbers may only be "shipped", but I think they're noticeably more impressive anyway.  And PS2 was popular in every territory, 360 is failing miserably in Japan, which is home to a lot of important developers and publishers.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

In regards to Xbox 360, I think we are forgetting they had HUGE shortages even into Aprile or May, so the contributed alot to the poor sales. Now that MS has enough units to sell I think this Christmas season should be used as a measurement of how well it is doing, not the previous months where shortages didn't rectified until far after Christmas.

[couchmonkey]

Ian: You know, I personally feel Nintendo has solved the problems that mattered to me on DS, but I agree with you on Nintendo being pretty greedy.  I have a feeling Nintendo may do really well this generation, but if it does, we can all kiss Player's Choice games goodbye.

VGrevolution: I agree that we won't know 360's true sales potential until the end of 2006 - maybe not even until next year.  I didn't expect PS2 to dominate as much as it did.  That said, the system is dead in the water in Japan, and even in North America PS2 continues to outsell Xbox 360 month after month.

One thing is for sure, this is going to be an interesting generation!  

[GoldenPhoenix]

I too think Nintendo has solved most of their problems, which I think is emphasized by the sucess of the DS against a tough competitor like PSP (or was once a tough competitor). Nintendo is finally realizing they can't hide in their own little shell and create games just for their fanbase, but have to expand out to 3rd parties along with creating games that will attract new gamers.

[NWR_pap64]

To those that are saying the PS3 price comment is "valid", there's no other way around it, no matter if the price is justified, the PS3 is far too expensive for a gaming machine.

So I can get a hard drive, uber mega powerful chips, online and Blu ray, big whoopty doo. The 360 offers half of these at a better price. And you guys seem to forget that even if the price of something is justified if its too expensive the consumer simply will NOT buy it. I mean, not every man, woman and child can spare 600 dollars for a GAMING CENTER. As a friend of mine pointed out, if a kid wants a PS3 badly and the parents find out its 600 bucks they will not buy it. The Wii might not be cheap but at least it is accesible to people.

A good example are Apple computers. They are expensive, but they are simply one of the best machines out there. But why haven't then taken off? Because PCs are far cheaper and accesible.

The best example would be the PSP. The system was pver 300 dollars, and it offered Wi-fi, internet browsing, movies, music and games. It was touted as the handheld that could do anything. Yet, how is it doing compared to the DS?

So no, even if 600 dollars is fair for the PS3 it doesn't mean people will be willing to pay it.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Pap is right you can stretch that logic to any stupid thing they want to put in the system that jacks the price up if it is still worth the sum of its parts. Maybe Sony should axe the PS3 and build it into a Mercedes or something for 50,000$ that would be a heck of a deal and obviously justifies the price since they get more right?

[capamerica]

Just so you know when it comes to which studios are supporting who, Paramount and Warner Bros are backing HD-DVD but are throwing a few titles in the way of Blu-Ray to give the illusion that they are supporting both when infact they are more of a HD-DVD supporter.

Also Disney is getting ready to go both formats. At the last Stock holders meeting they let slip that they were planing to start supporting both.

And you can't really count MGM since Sony acquired them back in April 2005.

The only companies Blu-Ray has for sure 100% is Sony and Fox and HD-DVD only has Universal. And even Fox is starting to question if it will say Blu-Ray only.

If you look back during the Betamax / VHS war betamax also had the support from all these companies as well.

It should also be pointed out that Blu-Ray is already getting a track record of not playing well with any CDs and some DVDs While HD-DVD has no issues what so ever.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
In respect to studio support, Blu-Ray has the better offering, but you are still having to pick and choose between the two and it makes both formats less ideal. Even with full studio support behind each I think both would still faulter against DVDs, but it being divided is pretty much suicidal to both new formats.

Sony owns MGM and Disney has said they will do both.

And yes, DVDs are more than likely going to be the dominant format for years to come. DVDs beat out VHS only after MANY years and that's with DVDs being a graphical improvement people could literally see IMMEDIATELY on the TV they already own.

My opinion is that HDDVD and BluRay will take so long to be adopted that, by the time they would find a place in the market, a form of online media distribution will have already taken their place.

I have a hacked Xbox which serves as a media center. We don't watch many DVDs, but we do download TV shows and watch them at our leisure thanks to the Xbox. From what I understand the 360 is moving toward a similar level of functionality by supporting DIVX format in the next firmware upgrade. I strongly believe that media boxes will replace optical media because they're already doing that today.

As for Nintendo, this isn't the same Nintendo that made the N64 and the Cube: this is Iwata's Nintendo, Reggie's Nintendo, the Apple-inspired Nintendo which has already proven with the DS that it can be a deadly snake in the marketplace and everything I'm seeing and hearing about the Wii indicates it will do the same.

[Kairon]

You need to have a 600 dollar chunk of disposable income first, no matter how great a value the item is.

I don't rate Nintendo as greedy. I can agree that they're profitable, and that as a business they're squeezing every last dollar they can out of their consumers.

But they're sticking to a $50 dollar price point for this next-gen while the X360 and PS3 will see more $60+ price points. They've long ago reduced their licensing fees to be competitive with MS and Sony. They still release their DS games at $30 MSRP (nevermind that retailers jack that up). And they are willing to release budget software, like with Brain Age, etc.

Yes, they make money on their controllers, their console, their first party games, but that's the whole point of a business. Greed is dictated by when they cross over the rational threshold and drive away customers that they would've had anyways had they played fair. They crossed that threshold with the N64's cartridges and license fees, but they didn't cross that threshold with the GC, nor have they so far with either the DS (The Lite launched at a surprisingly low price) or seem to with the Wii (for the reasons stated above... except for maybe a bit with the controllers).

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Pittbboi]

Well, the PS3 is more than a bit excessive for a gaming console. But, it's pretty obvious most of that cost is due to the blu-ray player. If it weren't for that, PS3 would probably be in the same range of the Xbox 360.

Sony's banking of blu-ray taking over as a new video medium, just like it did with the PS2 and DVD. As uninterested as I am in the PS3, even I have to admit that it's a little because blu-ray is so unproven and most likely won't take over. However, I do have an HD-TV, and I have to admit that, if blu-ray did become popular, the PS3 would start to look a little more attractive to me

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Also Disney is getting ready to go both formats. At the last Stock holders meeting they let slip that they were planing to start supporting both.

Must have missed that new piece of information, thanks for addressing it.

Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
And you can't really count MGM since Sony acquired them back in April 2005.

Really? Fox does the MGM home video releases now, and will be the ones to release the Bond films to DVD again among other high profile titles. Sony gets the theatrical distribution still, but MGM has taken their home video catalogue else where.

Quote from the article:

"While Sony will lose access to MGM titles that it can release on Blu-ray, its efforts to promote the technology will still be buttressed by the fact that Fox also is known as a strong Blu-ray supporter."

As also stated in that article, the "buy out" was 20% of MGM for Sony, so the company is still able to make their own choices if the board gets behind them (think Square's relationship with Sony before the Enix merger).  

[IceCold]

Quote
I would not be surprised if that was a relatively big factor in the descision to have it come out the 21 of November

That guy in the other thread wrote 17th of November by mistake, and you wrote 21st.. Average them out, and you get the real date

I think that February - October of 2007 will be the critical period for all the consoles. The Wii will have gotten past its launch, and will have consoles readily available. It's crucial that they get picked up during this time period after the launch. I have no worries about the launch; it will be huge. But so was the GameCube's.. Third parties will look at this period and then decide whether to support the Wii strongly. Nintendo can pull out some aces from their sleeves to move consoles - the black colour addition, a pricecut, and most importantly, games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime Corruption. This was the factor that most contributed to the Cube's failure - the post-launch drought. Sure, in late 2002 and the whole of 2003, there was no shortage of brilliant games. That was the best part of the Cube's life. It didn't really make a difference, though.. The momentum had been stopped, and third party support was never quite regained. Hopefully this is different with the Wii.

The PS3 and 360 will also be tested during this time. The post-holiday lull will take its toll. Sony especially will need a lot of luck after launch - it's still to be determined whether casuals will drop that much money or wait for a pricecut. After the hardcores are done buying it, there might not be anywhere for Sony to turn to. Just like the PSP..