Topic: Nintendo on Xbox360, PS3 & Moblie Gaming - Jim Merrick speaks

[couchmonkey]

I disagree with people who say regular gamers are highly likely to own more than one console.  I never had the cash or the rich parents to buy me multiple consoles, and now that I do have the money to buy multiple consoles, I don't have time to play them.  Soon I'll have house payments to take care of, and guess what?  I'll be back to not having enough money to own multiple consoles.  I think if Nintendo hopes to be number 2 in everyone's home, it's giving up a large audience of people who can't afford to buy multiple consoles.

On another topic, I am by no means disappointed with my GameCube.  Although it's going out on a bit of a sour note, I think it fixed the major problems the N64 had, while only introducing minor new ones (undersized memory cards).  For me, the only really disappointing things about the GameCube are :
A) The slow final year we're about to have - but even the mighty Super NES had a poor final year, and
B) The sales...but who cares about those as long as the games were good?  Which they were.

The N64 was a bit more of a disappointment due to horrible third party support (much worse than the GameCube) but it still holds a special place in my heart for introducing me to awesome 3D games and for having a lot of highly polished titles.

[Ian Sane]

"Regular gamers today are highly likely to own more than one console, such that "theft" of a customer doesn't really exist."

I think that strategy is severely flawed.  People typically don't buy two consoles.  Consoles are expensive so for most it's an either or scenario.  A sale for one console is usually a non-sale for another.  The only people who buy multiple consoles are hardcore gamers with a lot of disposable income.  Since the NES days I have never ever been to someone's house and noticed they had two consoles from the same generation.  I didn't know anyone like that until I got internet.

"Most people (I know anyway) don't have the thought process 'Well, this $50 game isn't coming out, so I'm going to buy a $460 system and a game.'"

I'm thinking more of the thought process "Dammit, Zelda got delayed and the Cube's looking pretty weak.  I'm getting pretty sick of putting up with Nintendo's crap.  I'm jumping ship."  I'm thinking about the fence sitters.  The formerly loyal Nintendo fans who are just getting sick of Nintendo consistently underachieving and are thus considering the idea of jumping ship.  Those people need a reason to stick with Nintendo and thus need an incentive to buy the Rev NOW before competitors start to tempt them.

[Don'tHate742]

Can't really argue with that...

However, it seems like MS is dropping the ball. They aren't going to have enough systems for the people who are fanboys and the like, so how is the person who recently decided they want one, going to get one?

They probably can't tell about a month or two later. This gives Nintendo enough time to make a few encouraging comments to those people on the fence. Hopefully this december MiyamotoN will at least have descriptions of how the games in production will work or the revealing of some integral piece of information.  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Regular gamers today are highly likely to own more than one console, such that "theft" of a customer doesn't really exist."

I think that strategy is severely flawed.  People typically don't buy two consoles.  Consoles are expensive so for most it's an either or scenario.  A sale for one console is usually a non-sale for another.  The only people who buy multiple consoles are hardcore gamers with a lot of disposable income.  Since the NES days I have never ever been to someone's house and noticed they had two consoles from the same generation.  I didn't know anyone like that until I got internet.

The people who are hardcore gamers typically buy two consoles, so we really shouldn't think that if a hardcore gamer buys an X360, that they'll never buy a Rev. Early Adopters and serious gamers are, well, they buy most everything.

As for the people who DO buy only one console, I stated cost as one of the reasons. This cost reason for only one console is a big reason why Nintendo is aiming for a lower pricepoint, to make buying the Rev as painless as possible. YET, these same people who buy only one console are NOT the type of people who would buy the console at launch! If you're worrying about these people, the critical stages are the second and third years of the consoles life because that's when they typically adopt, not the first year rife with shortages, fewer appealing games, and most importantly, STILL HIGH PRICES.

Anyways, let's fast forward PAST the X360 launch which you are inexplicably riled up about to a time when a consumer has enough money for one console: it comes down to exclusives. Microsoft has some and Sony has some and Nintendo has some. Nintendo has typically not excelled in this category despite having it's first party franchises, but this is exactly why Nintendo designed the Rev Controller. On the PS3 you'll get a couple of exclusive games. On the X360 you'll get a couple of exclusive games. BUT, on the Rev, not only are Nintendo's Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. exclusive, but you also get amazing exclusive Gameplay which will also bring a long a whole slew of intrinsically exclusive titles BUT YOU ALSO GET Cheaper Retro NES Games!

If you look at the Rev, Nintendo is really saying to people who are late adopters and only buy one console that, "if you only buy one console, why buy the PS3 or X360 which are virtually the same? The Rev won't just have exclusive games, but also exclusive gameplay AND exclusive retro downloads!"

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[zakkiel]

Quote
I disagree with people who say regular gamers are highly likely to own more than one console. I never had the cash or the rich parents to buy me multiple consoles, and now that I do have the money to buy multiple consoles, I don't have time to play them.

Notice the move here: I don't own two consoles, therefore it must be the case that most gamers do not.

[IceCold]

BUT, on the Rev, not only are Nintendo's Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. exclusive, but you also get amazing exclusive Gameplay which will also bring a long a whole slew of intrinsically exclusive titles

Well yeah...IF 3rd parties will actually take the time to mould their games around the NRC, or at least adapt them to make them play better. Many, many ports will just use the shell, or if not, use the NRC in an uncreative and unintuitive fashion.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel

Quote
I disagree with people who say regular gamers are highly likely to own more than one console. I never had the cash or the rich parents to buy me multiple consoles, and now that I do have the money to buy multiple consoles, I don't have time to play them.

Notice the move here: I don't own two consoles, therefore it must be the case that most gamers do not.

Notice your refusal to try and follow logic.  Most people don't have rich parents that buy them multiple console and those who can afford multiple console tend to work and do not have the time or money to follow multiple consoles.  Remember people play games and not consoles.  Most people will buy more games for the first console they purchased rather than invest in another platform.

[Ian Sane]

IceCold's right.  In a perfect world the Rev could offer some cool stuff.  But Nintendo can't force third parties to play ball.  They don't have the market position to convince a company like EA to make an entirely different Madden just for the Rev.  If the shell wasn't there a whole bunch of third parties would probably just avoid the Rev altogether.  Why make a special game for a unique controller when I can make one game for both of the other consoles that probably will sell better anyway due to the current market positions?

This was supposed to be a big advantage with the DS but I have not been very impressed with the DS third party offering.  Or in cases where I am, like Castlevania, they're for games that don't really make much use of the DS features.  The truth is third parties just aren't very creative so you can't really have a strategy that relies on them to be.  You can rely on them to make great games but not innovative or groundbreaking ones.

"if you only buy one console, why buy the PS3 or X360 which are virtually the same? The Rev won't just have exclusive games, but also exclusive gameplay AND exclusive retro downloads!"

What do I care if the PS3 or X360 are virtually the same if I only buy one of them?  Just because the Rev is different doesn't mean it's better.  That's why I feel they should give us some more info.  PROVE that this new and different way is better.

You have a lot of faith in the Rev but unfortunately that's a requirement to be interested in it.  Faith isn't good enough.  "Trust us it will be cool" isn't good enough particularly from a company that failed on that promise a fair bit this gen.

[Kairon]

Well, according to a recent survey released by Piper Jaffray...

Piper Jaffray News bit on Gamasutra

Quote
In addition, in an interesting insight into teen trends, 65 percent of student households own Sony's PlayStation 2, 50 percent own Microsoft's Xbox and just 26 percent own Nintendo's GameCube.

Through simple analysis, this means that the smallest possible percentage of teens who own more than one console is 26%. (This assumes that the PS2 and XBox communities are so distinct that only 15% is shared between them, and that these people also bought the GC such that the number of people who own the GC and another system is as small as possible.

The largest possible percentage of multi-console owning teen households is 76%. This assumes that everyone who bought an XBox or GC also bought another consoles, and assumes that there is no triple-ownership (which my briest friend happens to be: a triple owner).

This survey handles just the teen market, which means it doesn't even address the 20-year olds and up who are also avid hardcore gamers and, being in their 20's, are comparatively big spenders as well and can be expected to have even more multiple console ownership than teenagers.

AND, this survey took place late in the console penetration, allowing casual and non-gamers to be included and dilute the number to make multiple console owners have a smaller percentage. I am pretty confident that this data can be interpreted such that, even if we look at this conservatively we are looking at least at a 45% real world multiple console ownership among hardcore gamers (including college kids).

I do not consider those small numbers, and though my data is extrapolated, I suspect that Nintendo has seen similar data to back it up and expects the trend of multiple console ownership among hardcore gamers to hold strong and even grow.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
IceCold's right.  In a perfect world the Rev could offer some cool stuff.  But Nintendo can't force third parties to play ball.  They don't have the market position to convince a company like EA to make an entirely different Madden just for the Rev.  If the shell wasn't there a whole bunch of third parties would probably just avoid the Rev altogether.  Why make a special game for a unique controller when I can make one game for both of the other consoles that probably will sell better anyway due to the current market positions?

This was supposed to be a big advantage with the DS but I have not been very impressed with the DS third party offering.  Or in cases where I am, like Castlevania, they're for games that don't really make much use of the DS features.  The truth is third parties just aren't very creative so you can't really have a strategy that relies on them to be.  You can rely on them to make great games but not innovative or groundbreaking ones.

"if you only buy one console, why buy the PS3 or X360 which are virtually the same? The Rev won't just have exclusive games, but also exclusive gameplay AND exclusive retro downloads!"

What do I care if the PS3 or X360 are virtually the same if I only buy one of them?  Just because the Rev is different doesn't mean it's better.  That's why I feel they should give us some more info.  PROVE that this new and different way is better.

You have a lot of faith in the Rev but unfortunately that's a requirement to be interested in it.  Faith isn't good enough.  "Trust us it will be cool" isn't good enough particularly from a company that failed on that promise a fair bit this gen.

Don't forget, the shell STILL makes use of the Rev's gyros. Games ported to the Rev using the shell can still offer unique gameplay that other systems don't have.

I do agree with you that Third Parties don't seem capable of coming out of the gate with completely adequate projects. Heck, it took them years to catch up to Nintendo in terms of using the analog stick! But I also think you underestimate the draw of this new gameplay style. This isn't just drawing on a screen Ian, this is the first expression of actually translating full 3D movement into actual control, this is the first real step towards the admittedly-wacky holy grail of virtual reality. We have a very prominent previous example of more natural game controls that caught on big with casual and non-gamers everywhere: it's called DDR, and it had even my uncles and aunts (*shudder*) rushing to play the PSX game.

Now, yes, I do have a lot of faith in Nintendo. I have faith because I've played their games, I've read Miyamoto's interviews, I've looked at their past, and in trying to understand the company more, I've learned to accept them as who they are.

But you're right, faith won't get gamer to buy the Rev. Nor will screenshots. What are screenshots anyways but telling the consumer that "hey! I have pretty graphics! You'll have to trust me that I play as well as I look, and that the animation doesn't suck, nor the voice acting!"

No, faith won't get people to buy the rev, nor screenshots, nor techspecs, nor viral campaigns, nor all the collective effort of any fanboy community. It'll be people picking up the controller and playing the games.

Luckily, that's always been the one area where Nintendo has given us their best efforts.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well, according to a recent survey released by Piper Jaffray...

Piper Jaffray News bit on Gamasutra

Quote
In addition, in an interesting insight into teen trends, 65 percent of student households own Sony's PlayStation 2, 50 percent own Microsoft's Xbox and just 26 percent own Nintendo's GameCube.

Through simple analysis, this means that the smallest possible percentage of teens who own more than one console is 26%. (This assumes that the PS2 and XBox communities are so distinct that only 15% is shared between them, and that these people also bought the GC such that the number of people who own the GC and another system is as small as possible.

The largest possible percentage of multi-console owning teen households is 76%. This assumes that everyone who bought an XBox or GC also bought another consoles, and assumes that there is no triple-ownership (which my briest friend happens to be: a triple owner).

This survey handles just the teen market, which means it doesn't even address the 20-year olds and up who are also avid hardcore gamers and, being in their 20's, are comparatively big spenders as well and can be expected to have even more multiple console ownership than teenagers.

AND, this survey took place late in the console penetration, allowing casual and non-gamers to be included and dilute the number to make multiple console owners have a smaller percentage. I am pretty confident that this data can be interpreted such that, even if we look at this conservatively we are looking at least at a 45% real world multiple console ownership among hardcore gamers (including college kids).

I do not consider those small numbers, and though my data is extrapolated, I suspect that Nintendo has seen similar data to back it up and expects the trend of multiple console ownership among hardcore gamers to hold strong and even grow.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

For someone who speaks as if they are an expert with statistics, I'm surprised you'd try to use a survey as definitive proof for anything.  They surveyed these teens at a mall and online.  Not even close to random or representative.  Friends (and let's not forget sibilings) tend to be of the same economic status, so you'd get clusters of multiple console hits.  I won't even go into the pointlessness of online surveying.  You can be confident of this data all you want but worldwide, there is no way 1 in 4 own multiple consoles.  

Also interesting how you feel multiple console ownership will grow when that same survey states that the 'teen' trend is decline in video games.  
And finally, Kairon, do you honestly think 20 years or older will help your percentages?  They have more disposible income, yes, but unless you are that ebay games manager who lives with his mother, you also tend to have more responsiblity and crap to spend that income on.

[IceCold]

Odifiend is absolutely right. That survey is flawed, and you really shouldn't base your arguments on it. I'd like to see more concrete evidence; I highly doubt that more than a quarter of all people own multiple consoles.

I agree with everyone who isn't in favour of the "second console" stand. I don't like it myself; the Revolution shouldn't be like that - it shouldn't be an afterthought or play second fiddle.

[Don'tHate742]

What are we arguing about again?

[Mario]

The price of nutmeg!

[Kairon]

I certainly accept that the survey isn't definitive proof (especially as it's in the US only), but whereas everyone here has pointed out that either

a) they don't own more than one console

or

b) they DO own more than one console

This survey is the closest thing we've seen towards any concrete evidence in this thread as to the actual numbers of multiple console ownership.

I never professed to be a statistics expert, but from this survey we see that there is actual real world non-testimonial support to propose that a good amount of the population does own more than one console, and this goes to lend credence to the idea that Nintendo may actually find a real market in the owns-more-than-one-console hardcore gamer segment.

Disdain the study, but this is still the first concrete piece of evidence given to support the penetration of multi-console ownership among the gaming population.

Now, certainly we're disagreeing on the validity of this "and" console strategy. Of course, only time will definitively answer the question, but I still haven't seen any reasons to question this second-console strategy aside from personal testimonials of "I don't believe this is the way to go" when I've never seen anything to the contrary in the time I've been trying to keep up with what's going on in the industry.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com  

[Hostile Creation]

Revolution only needs to start as the second fiddle.  Once everyone tries it, buys one, finds out how great it is and how much they like it. . . they'll forget about the other systems altogether.
Assuming Nintendo can pull that off.

[wandering]

Quote

Originally posted by: IceCold
Well yeah...IF 3rd parties will actually take the time to mould their games around the NRC, or at least adapt them to make them play better. Many, many ports will just use the shell, or if not, use the NRC in an uncreative and unintuitive fashion.

People keep saying that third parties will use nothing but the shell....not going to happen. In fact, they'll jump at the chance to make their games more appealing for less effort by including motion control.
Can you think of a single third-part DS game that doesn't use the touch-screen?

[Dasmos]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering

Quote

Originally posted by: IceCold
Well yeah...IF 3rd parties will actually take the time to mould their games around the NRC, or at least adapt them to make them play better. Many, many ports will just use the shell, or if not, use the NRC in an uncreative and unintuitive fashion.

People keep saying that third parties will use nothing but the shell....not going to happen. In fact, they'll jump at the chance to make their games more appealing for less effort by including motion control.
Can you think of a single third-part DS game that doesn't use the touch-screen?

Sure the touchscreen is used. But mostly not in unique and interesting ways, that's the difference. The NRC could be used to choice an option in the menu bar. Revolutionary? No.

[wandering]

I dunno about that.....Japanese third parties, at least, seem to be using the touch screen well. As for american third parties, they may not be using it well, but at least their generally using it in a way that makes it look good in commercials (see: splinter cell), which leads to more sales/interest, which leads to more third party support, which leads to more people owning DSes, which leads to more third party support, which leads to more and more games. So, I think the DS's innovative features have definitely paid off and I think that Revolution's will too.