Topic: psp & ps2 were also marketed to non-gamers

[willie1234]

Here's a thought,
the psp, the ps2 and the xbox to some extent were all marketed at non-gamers.  My understanding is that the ps2 was outragiously successful in getting people to buy the system for the sole purpose of watching dvd's (the players of which were expensive at the time).  Today, the psp continues strong sales (though not as strong as the ps2 was in its segment) also becuase of the non-game movie viewing feature.

Obviously, with the ps2 this didn't turn anyone off.  Quite the contrary.  3rd parties were much more likely to develop games for a system with strong unit sales, and this brought in more gamers.  We see the same with the ds where the so called 'non-games' or games focused on non traditional gamer markets bring up the unit sales, and give some tail wind to those games that are.

So I don't really see any drawback to the rev following this same strategy.  The only difference being that instead of focusing on multi-media (music, video) non-games, it is focusing on different types of games in order to expand the market.

Seems reasonable to me...

[Smash_Brother]

I still can't understand why the PSP would see strong sales as a movie player.

Spending $300+ only to have to buy any movie you want to watch on a non-DVD format which then won't play on your TV seems like the very definition of idiocy.

-SB

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think the whole strategy will al make sense once the PSP-->PS3 connectivity is explained
there is an article on it somewhere but I don't feel like looking for it right now

[Hostile Creation]

PSP and PS2 are also not the Revolution.

Other systems, maybe?

[IceCold]

Ha I thought Perm made this topic; seem like the kind of title he would use

That's exactly it; Nintendo is still focusing on games. They never take the focus off games, simply because then the software numbers would be much lower. The multimedia stuff is just a distraction, and because of it, the tie-in ratio is lower, since not as many games are being sold. Instead, it is being used as a multimedia player. Developers pay attention to the software ratio; it's as important as marketshare..

[BlkPaladin]

The only problem that may come up is "genre pooling".

Right now the PSP is plegued by racers. The DS by inovative games (not too bad since it give refreshment). And the Revolution may because of its controller the FPS and RTS. (I wouldn't mind quite a few of the latter.)


EDIT:  

[couchmonkey]

I think Nintendo's strategy is quite different than those other strategies.  Sony has successfully sold more hardware, but I bet a lot of the PS2 and PSP owners out there never became gamers.  One of the PSP owners I know bought it for the multimedia functions and bought one game with it.  I'd be very surprised if he's bought more than one additional game in the past several months, in fact I don't think he's bought any at all.

Nintendo's strategy is to actually expand the gaming population, not the population of people who bought the hardware for something else, and play one or two games on it.  I think this strategy has more potential than previous attempts to grab gamers by selling multimedia functions like DVD playback, because Nintendo is trying to fix the things that are keeping people from playing games.  At the same time, it's also more of a gamble, because the Sony strategy of including multimedia functions doesn't rely on people taking up gaming as a hobby, if it fails they can still capture the same old markets.  Nintendo's strategy could cost it the existing market if the system is seen as underpowered and less innovative than Nintendo promised.

[Cap]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I still can't understand why the PSP would see strong sales as a movie player.

Spending $300+ only to have to buy any movie you want to watch on a non-DVD format which then won't play on your TV seems like the very definition of idiocy.

-SB

at higher prices no less. its kind of funny walking into the game section of a store and looking at the psp's "games". theres more movies on the shelves then games, and most are higher priced then their dvd counterparts. most psp movies are upwards of $30(canadian) in my area.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Cap

at higher prices no less. its kind of funny walking into the game section of a store and looking at the psp's "games". theres more movies on the shelves then games, and most are higher priced then their dvd counterparts. most psp movies are upwards of $30(canadian) in my area.

Oh, and PORTABLE DVD PLAYERS ARE HELLA CHEAP!!!

Why would you pay more for a media player with a smaller screen which forces you to rebuy every movie you want to watch?!?

-SB

[Ian Sane]

One difference I see between the strategies is that Nintendo's strategy affects the actual game library and Sony's doesn't.  The DVD player on the PS2 doesn't affect the PS2 library.  If you're a gamer and you don't care about the DVD player the PS2 library isn't compromised in any way.  Developers are still making games for you and the DVD playback doesn't divert their resources.  With the Rev Nintendo's resources are being split between non-gamers and gamers.  Thus from a gamer perspective the Rev is being compromised for non-gamers.  The library of games is affected.  Nintendo is affected.  And if third parties get in on making non-gamer stuff their support is also affected.  Now one library has to appeal to two groups and those two groups could potentially have totally different needs and wants.  Sony includes a DVD player but 100% of the PS2 lineup is still for gamers.  With the Rev depending on how big of a gap their is between "gamer" games and "non-gamer" games the library isn't 100% for gamers.  There was never any risk with the PS2 of alienating the core audience but with Nintendo's approach that risk exists.  With the PS2 Sony's game division and all the third parties could just do business as usual.  With the Rev Nintendo and any third party that goes with their philosophy runs the risk of spreading themselves thin.

But then if Nintendo's plan works as planned then they do create gamers more than Sony ever did.

[Smash_Brother]

I think we need to actually see Nintendo's planned Rev games before we decide that they're wasting resources on non-gamers. In that same vein of thinking, what would be a game which would appeal to non-gamers but would NOT appeal to gamers?

I think there's a pretty universal part of the human mind which you can show something and immediately engage the processes which say, "That's so cool!" Trouble is, tapping into that part is seldom easy and you can often never be sure if a concept will hit home in that manner or not.

-SB

[willie1234]

The thing is - when you make an investment to attract non-games, or non hard core gamers (let's assume for the sake of argument this is the same set of people), which I think we all agree that both Nintendo and Sony (and to some extent Microsoft) are actively doing, you are going to risk losing the purist hard core gamers.
In Sony's case, they are doing so on the hardware side.  Since they do not create first party games (that I'm aware of) at all, their compromise is to make the hardware more expensive to attract non-gaming buyers with multimedia features.  This equates to a tax for anyone interested _only_ in gaming.
From a cost perspective, Nintendo's approach is similar, but instead of taxing the hardware, they invest a portion (for Brain Training, let's say tiny portion) of their development budget towards attracting non-gamers.  True, they are not focusing 100% on the hard core's, but let's face it, that is a losing strategy and one that no one else is following at all.

DS has 'won' in the same way that ps2 won.  By gaining huge amounts of mindshare by selling features (games or dvd viewing) that is popular outside the core market.  This tailwind helps the hardcore gamers down the road when 3rd parties get attracted, and Nintendo and Sony are able to invest more into their product because of it's success.

I agree with your points Ian, that this will cost Nintendo some, and will be a risk, but it is important to point out that this is a risk that everyone else is taking in their own ways, and further one that has shown to be a good model for Nintendo in the ds.

Also, I agree with the other arguments, that these non-games eventually have better tie in rates than movies because in reality they are games, and they allow the new market to become comfortable with the gaming experience.

[Ian Sane]

"True, they are not focusing 100% on the hard core's, but let's face it, that is a losing strategy and one that no one else is following at all."

I don't see that as a losing strategy.  The GBA managed to do incredibly well with that model.  If you're suggesting that the Cube used that strategy and it didn't work I'd say that logic is flawed.  A strategy can only be determined a failure if it fails while being for the most part executed correctly.  I consider Nintendo's severe incompetance as the main reason for the Cube's underperformance.  Basically they screwed up a lot so to suggest that "strategy" doesn't work doesn't make sense because the execution was horrendously botched.  Someone who isn't a total spaz could probably make a hardcore gamers system and pull it off.  

[Smash_Brother]

I think the xbox is a perfect example of a console for the hardcore gamer: pay to play online support with lots of features, tons of cookie-cutter FPS, racing and sports games all trying to win the attention of the "hardcore" gamer who owns the system.

Meanwhile, very few games which fall outside the hardcore demographic: few to no games for children, few family friendly games, few original concepts.

Did it succeed? No, it didn't: the console lost roughly $1 billion. Now, that's not to say that a company who actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be able to succeed with the concept, but attracting NEW business is never a bad idea while at the same time continuing to market to your core userbase.

-SB

[attackslug]

Actually, I would consider the xbox to be a rather sizable success.  It did what it set out to do - establish Microsoft as a player in the video game industry.  Xbox 1 was released knowing that the company would be at a slight loss financially, but look what it has done: it took the #2 position in the US, taking away potential sales from Nintendo and Sony and opening the door for even more sales of the 360.  Think about it -- throngs of 16-30 year old American gamers who would otherwise be playing Metroid Prime, Killzone, or PC FPSs got exactly what they wanted in the Xbox, and the same group of people are looking at buying or already own a 360.

Whether or not the 360 will continue what MS set out to do and increase market penetrance even further as well as eventually generate a profit remains to be seen, but I would hardly call the original a "flop".

[Ian Sane]

"I think the xbox is a perfect example of a console for the hardcore gamer"

Bah!  That's just a marketing slogan.  The Xbox was designed to give Microsoft a presence in the living room.  Although there's more focus on gaming then Sony's efforts it still seems like a means to an end for MS to sell set-top boxes.  The Xbox 360 is referred to as the "Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system" for example.

And the Xbox is a success anyway.  These days "Xbox" has become synonomous with gaming in North America.  Yeah MS didn't make a profit but that was never the plan.  They did exactly what they wanted to do.  The Cube was profitable but Nintendo didn't perform to Nintendo's expectations.

I'd argue that this coming gen no one is offering a console for gamers.  All three are distracted by target markets outside of gaming.  Nintendo's method is just different then the other two's.

[Nosferat2]

Again Ian makes sense, and essentially correct,
as such i must concur.

[nickmitch]

Yeah, all the extra features of the 360 are really just computer functions. I mean, playing songs from your iPod only takes away the responsibility of the developer to provide decent music in a game. But then again, most casuals would only play games with licensed soundtracks anyway.

[The Omen]

Quote
Oh, and PORTABLE DVD PLAYERS ARE HELLA CHEAP!!!

Why would you pay more for a media player with a smaller screen which forces you to rebuy every movie you want to watch?!?

-SB

Because Sony tells them too!

Seriously, I find the whole idea of buying PSP movies incredibly dumb...it sickens me, frankly.  That's how f'n stupid society is today, they'll buy whatever's new, despite it making no sense at all.   I mean really, how masochistic must you be to buy all of your movies twice?  I can't see only owning the UMD version, because that relegates you to the small screen.  Everytime I see some punk kid with his cap to the side buying "Get Rich...Or Die Trying" for the PSP I will vomit in my mouth.

Arrrg!  So f'n stupid!

[KDR_11k]

"True, they are not focusing 100% on the hard core's, but let's face it, that is a losing strategy and one that no one else is following at all."

I don't see that as a losing strategy. The GBA managed to do incredibly well with that model.

WTF? What's hardcore about the GBA's game lineup? 95% of the games on that system are crappy license cash-ins that hope to prey on uninformed people. Maybe there are a few token hardcore games on the GBA but the system is clearly aimed at casual gamers.

Actually, I would consider the xbox to be a rather sizable success. It did what it set out to do - establish Microsoft as a player in the video game industry.

It did that badly. Atari, Nintendo, Sony, all of them took over the entire market on their first try. Because they played their cards right and used the situation to their advantage. MS is using a brute force approach that relies on throwing money at the problem. The leaders adjusted their plans used the market forces to their advantage, MS is trying to change the market forces to fit their plan. The market didn't and still doesn't need the XBox, MS bombarded everyone with advertising to forcefully create a market for a console that does everything the same.

Now Sony is trying the same idiotic approach as Microsoft for the PSP. Release a product with little to no demand and try to convince the market to buy it instead of using an existing demand. Nintendo followed the exiting demands and created things that pretty much sell themselves but by the time they released the Gamecube Sony already filled that demand perfectly. That's why Nintendo is changing its plans to fit into new demand holes, their current one is shrinking too much.

[Smash_Brother]

I say it failed because, from a business perspective, it DID fail.

In fact, I've yet to see any evidence that MS isn't going to spend their time throwing money at the 360 in the exact same way they did the original and still never return a profit. MS is still losing money on each 360 sold. They still haven't "earned" their place in the gaming market: they've just been buying time because they make their REAL money elsewhere.

I believe in the Netherlands that there are monopoly laws which actually forbid companies from selling products at a loss . As hard as it is to believe, the 360 would be even more expensive, were that the case here.

-SB

[KDR_11k]

There's such a law in almost every country, it's called dumping but because MS bribed most of the US political system noone dares to really hurt them with a judgement. Remember the antitrust lawsuit? Result? "Microsoft has to give a list of people free copies of Windows". Great. Costs MS almost nothing and helps them keep their monopoly position in the OS market. The judge on that case should have been dishonourly discharged. Big corporations are above the law, the RIAA got fined ONE MILLION DOLLARS for making all radio stations play their crap with various underhanded techniques and that was already a repeat offense! For actions like that a company should be forcefully dissolved but no, they just pay off Curious George and they're jail free.

[willie1234]

ok - so the gameboy advance, as a gaming pure play has and continues to succeed (in North America, where the ds has taken longer to pick up the market).  I would attribute that to demand for older games from the NES, but that's just an opinion and just as good/bad as saying it succeeded through being a gameing pure play (or for hardcores, as ian said).

but given that, I haven't seen any disagreement that Sony's non-gamer strategy has been wildly successful, in fact eating into Nintendo's market in both cases.  DS has done quite a bit better than the psp, but the psp, for a first try has done fairly well.  Sony is not backing away from this either, with Blue Ray and the Cell pushing multi media, Sony is emphasising this even more than with the PS2.

I am arguing that it would be a huge risk not to target a non-gamer market.  In essence by asking them to do this, you are asking Ninty to further isolate themselves with a strategy that has only worked for one system (in the current era) and has been a near disaster for the console which has a huge impact on Nintendo's mindshare.

According to this - http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=601547 ps2 sales have outmatched the gba, which I think is further testament to the non-gamer strategy.

[Renny]

The RIAA weren't just abusing 'payola' practices, they were convicted of price fixing CDs at retail stores. I got a $13 settlement check.