So... do you think they'll keep the code-name Revolution?
- Thread starter KirbyRockz
- Start date
stealth toilet
Moderator
Hahaha, smart aleck.
What can I say, Sartori brought out the best in me in this thread. I haven't gone toe to toe with someone like that for awhile. I actually learned something from all that (specifically that Microsoft discourages third party accessories, that is kind of underhanded, because their controllers ain't cheap).
S
Sartori
Lurker
stealth toilet said:
And you'll learn a lot more than that if I have anything to do with it! *Shakes fist*
In other news, I'm surprised.
S
Sartori
Lurker
stealth toilet said:
Here in America we don't much care about Canada, so let's talk about US Dollars before they collapse in value. ;-)
Back to reality, I wasnt' referring to the cost of a standard X Box controller, but a 360 controller. The price is as follows: standard ($40), wireless ($50). That's a lot more than the $25 I'm used to paying for my Gamecube controller, wouldn't you say? Wireless Wavebird is only 30-35, depending on where you go. These prices are still staggeringly lower than 360 pads which, shock, probably don't cost any more to make than standard X Box controllers. Do you disagree? Even if you do - you can't. That's the beauty of it, eh?
The best spin doctoring you say? Well, thank you. That's what I do best. Keep that in mind for when you need a sleek marketing guy for your new millionaire product, stealth.
This is humorous to me, as I do not feel the difference of system sales necessarily implies a "loss" in the sense I'm attempting to reach you in. Yes, there is no dispute that it is numerically lower than X Box system sales worldwide. This wasn't always the case, which is a very important point. The Gamecube has lost some steam in the recent years as third party developers who do not desire to compete with Nintendo's products have shuffled away from the Gamecube. It's kind of hard to release Bugs and Bad Testing's Half-3D adventure on GCN when there exists a premium title on the shelf next to it called The Legend of Zelda, thus a natural migration of developers. However, also to note is that formerly pledged loyalties had the plugs pulled on them prior to even being tested in real-time market place (IE: Capcom/Shinji Mikami). These are very interesting points that lead up to my final summary: the GCN was leading in worldwide sales initially and later slowed to a slight lag behind. This is very important as we look at the politics surrounding the GCN and the years of development and titles regarding.
The second half of your paragraph really is resolved by my statement above, but to further iterate, Microsoft (despite company profits being up) continues to lose about a billion dollars a year, despite passing beyond the generation of X Box and moving toward 360. (Ref: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148512.html )
Hmm, isn't that a shame? But I guess, as Microsoft says, penetration is up. That's great. Shareholders won't allow this forever. That's my stance on the issue and I will not budge.
This change in marketshare is purely superficial, as those who are particularly interested in Nintendo or what they have to offer tend to stay that way. What we have is a sway in what the political system may call "throw-away-votes". These are the people who are going to sway to whichever camp is "cooler" at the time, or maybe even sway away and not hang out in any camp at all! This is why Nintendo has developed the "Blue Ocean" strategy in conjunction with hardware like the Nintendo DS (which has reached such critical acclaim that I could not even predict - selling over 2 million this year already in Japan alone is staggering) and the upcoming Nintendo Wii. These systems, whether you like it or not, is either going to reach out to disenfranchised players, people who don't play at all, or both. This isn't a presumption (okay, granted with the Wii it is, but if the racoon gets caught in the cage due to sardine bait once. . . ), but rather a proven business model as is evident with the DS. The Nintendo DS is an even more strange character due to the nature of the market at the time. While Nintendo has not only created but dominated the handheld market for well over a decade and nearly two now, the DS was posed as a potential competitor, foreign, and strange altogether. Not only that, but Sony, big bad Sony had the goliath around the corner - a system that was supposedly on par (technically) with the Playstation 2, the world's best selling home console of current. Oh noes! But.. unfortunately, despite the UMD having shipped X million units here and there, despite Sony stating how well the UMD is doing and how great the PSP is.. there go the UMD off the shelves. Here come the poor sales reports. Here comes the reaper. Strangely, the DS defys all expectations and "off the wall games" that no one but "idiots" would be interested in such as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and so forth are selling like hot cakes and developers all over Nippon are jumping in for the chance at the piece of the pie (see: 500 Brain Age clones in Japan).
If you're asking me whether or not this strategy will work in the United States? I think the writing's on the wall and while Microsoft may continue to throw that money - it won't last forever.
You have to turn the coin to keep it going, and Mario's daddy's doing just that.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Probably is not a good word to use here. Your use of the word "probably" here leads me to believe that you really don't know for certain either way. If you can somehow prove the manufacturing process of an Xbox 360 controller is equal in cost to that of a regular Xbox controller, then you may have something. Until then I probably won't believe your opinion on this matter. But I can offer an opinion of my own.
I can't speak for 360 controllers in general, namely because I don't own or use one on a regular basis, but it was to my understanding that there was some added functionality concerning the "X" logo on the controller. There is some kind of light on it that is in some way interactive with the Xbox 360 console itself. This would probably account for the extra cash you need to spend on a new 360 controller.
That's alright. Lies and deceit won't be needed to sell anything I put out on the market. And I was actually referring to Iwata's statement, not your own, but I suppose it could also be applied to you, what with your distortion of the truth and all. :lol
This simple disagreement could go on for ages, it's the old "chicken or the egg" debate. Does Nintendo knowingly discourage third party support in order to boost sales of their own games and rake in profit hand over fist? Or, as you suggested, are other companies intimidated by the stranglehold Nintendo has on their own fans?
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Third parties did not find an audience on the GC, for numerous reasons. This was so prevalent that by the end of the GC's lifespan third parties simply quit porting games over to the GC because they felt it wasn't even worth it. Perhaps this is a testamony to the rock solid game design of Nintendo's 1st party titles (but at the same time, perhaps not). They are so good they scare away the competition. Nintendo wins in terms of software sales, and everybody's happy, right? Wrong. Everyone who bought a GC loses, big time. While Nintendo makes money hand over fist on software sales their avid fans have virtually no choice in game selection. While superb third party titles are ported between both the Xbox and PS2 Nintendo fans are stuck nibbling on Miyamoto's tablescraps. Nintendo fans have two choices, either they get a Nintendo game, or they don't get anything at all. Most people avoided this choice altogether by choosing to buy either a PS2 or Xbox. As a result, Nintendo lost the console war.
But this simply confuses the issue. If people really valued 1st party Nintendo games more than the games on other consoles, then they would buy Nintendo's console for those games. As the evidence shows, this is not so.
It seems to me you are getting at something that you don't specifically state. You allude to the fact that systems like the PS2 and Xbox offer "badly tested" games, and the natural migration of shoddy developers is towards those consoles because the competition is pumping out the same shoddy games. If this truly was what you are getting at, then I flat out disagree with you. I will not dwell on this matter in case I have confused the issue, but to say developers like Valve, Namco, Rockstar, Bungie, EA, Lionhead Studios, Silicon Knights, Ubisoft... (the list goes on and on)... are intimidated by the quality of Nintendo titles, then you are deluded indeed.
I disagree, fundamentally so. The gamers who grew up on NES's and Super NES's (like myself, for example) are the same people now buying PS2's and Xbox's. The logic behind this is simple, but we've already gone through the "growing up/tastes changing" debate, there's no reason to go over it again here. But looking at age group demographics of the three consoles, it is obvious that Nintendo fans hitting adolescence and adulthood are, by and large, switching console alliances, if you will. The same people who grew up playing SMB3 and ALTTP are the same people who are now playing Halo 2 and GTA SA. As you said yourself awhile ago, the gaming market hasn't grown significantly in terms of numbers of people, but rather the number of systems they buy. If this is true then it stands to reason that those who once bought Nintendo consoles are now buying Sony's and Microsoft's, and in many cases forgetting Nintendo altogether.
While I concede this is possible (especially for the Japanese audience) I still remain doubtful that the Wii will bring in new gamers. If anything I think Nintendo's desire to stand out from the crowd will only alienate them from their fans. This is of course pure speculation on both our parts, although pointing out the success of the DS does back up your arguement with an observable trend. However, one must realize that, basing the Wii's possible success on the success of the DS system, we are talking of success in terms of system sales. There's no denying that you even point out a link between "critical acclaim" and "2 million units sold," thus in effect using the same evidence I have been using to prove to you the success of Sony and Microsoft. Have I misinterpreted something here? If I have, please clarify.
But I digress.
The issue we are still discussing here is whether or not Nintendo lost the last console war. All this talk of Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy and their well tested games, or Microsoft's reluctance to third party accessories, or even what Microsoft announced their fiscal quarter was... it's all fascinating, but it's all irrelevant. Nintendo sold the least amount of systems, they lost the console war. Concede that much and I will join you in speculation on future business strategies and some possible outcomes. But as it stands now I have no desire to contend the possible futures of Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony in this thread. If we cannot agree on what defined winning/losing the last console war, then there is no point in argueing over who will win/lose the next one.
S
Sartori
Lurker
You've changed a lot since I've been gone. I'll be back later for this on.
However, one note: there are no lies and deceiet here. If anything, a different view of the same coin. But you know that.
However, one note: there are no lies and deceiet here. If anything, a different view of the same coin. But you know that.
Back to reality, I wasnt' referring to the cost of a standard X Box controller, but a 360 controller. The price is as follows: standard ($40), wireless ($50). That's a lot more than the $25 I'm used to paying for my Gamecube controller, wouldn't you say? Wireless Wavebird is only 30-35, depending on where you go. These prices are still staggeringly lower than 360 pads which, shock, probably don't cost any more to make than standard X Box controllers. Do you disagree? Even if you do - you can't. That's the beauty of it, eh?
You're comparing a current gen system to a next gen system. Of course the controller will cost more. Can I disagree? Yes....that's teh beauty of it.
S
Sartori
Lurker
Strubes said:You're comparing a current gen system to a next gen system. Of course the controller will cost more. Can I disagree? Yes....that's teh beauty of it.
Take apart that 360 controller and find out just how different it is from your X Box controller and you'll find Microsoft is sticking it to your rear. Keep on disagreeing and pay for the neglect of a major corporation.
S
Sartori
Lurker
stealth toilet said:
Neither of us are going to come down with the manufacturing sheet for the Microsoft controllers, but logical evidence points to the 360 controller being similar in cost - why? Because it has no new features. Oh wait, there's a light-up button in the middle that opens the systems "home" menu. Oh dang. I'd pay anywhere from $15-$25 dollars for a little button, too! I'll be first in line.
Consider this - why the higher third party tarrifs? Hmm, isn't it a bit suspicious that the "next-gen" controllers (which have essentially no changes over last generation) suddenly spike anywhere from 50%-100% in price and suddenly third party manufacturers are hit with higher royalty, too? Hmm.. Maybe someone wants you to pick up all the financial slack they're losing on hardware sales. But then again, maybe Microsoft isn't trying to deviously pass on the 4 billion in losses to you or other manufacturers. Maybe that button really does cost 100% more to manufacture. That's one hell of a feature, if I do say so my self. What a plan - knock out the third party and raise the price, doesn't this sound like something we're quite used to from this company?
You can poke fun at the word "probably" all you like, but the writing is on the wall here. Microsoft is ripping players off very bluntly on the issue of accessories and has no shame about it.
You're calling them lies and deciet again? Since when do I spout lies and deciet?
I don't necessarily agree with this. In the modern market, due to the penetration of the Ps2, players who are fans of Nintendo would generally have to be extremely biased to only own the Gamecube due to what we're discussing here - saturation of titles available on the Ps2. Does this make Sony or Ps2 a superior manufacturer/console? No. Does it make it inferior? Not necessarily either. I think the case here is multi-console ownership, which has been a study conducted with much zeal as of these recent years, due to the market beginning to shrink in the United States. This is where opinions differ. Nintendo feels as though the gaming market is not much larger now than it was in the 1980s (30-40 million). For the most part, this places primary console owners in a position to own two consoles and often that dispute is between XBX and GCN. There's a lot more data on this I need to fish up for you.
However, point in being is that I do admit Nintendo lost the "sales race" toward the end of the generation. But this no more makes Microsoft the winner, for if they continue to operate as they have in the previous gaming cycle, they will have to exit stage left. No matter HOW MUCH you FEEL like they are "winning" - they'll have to go. No company is going to continually lose billions of dollars every cycle and continue to gain nothing. It will. Not. Happen. 2 million units above Nintendo or not. There's a difference here and while Microsoft may have money out the ass, shareholders will not always be pleased. This is why you see tactics such as the one described in the beginning of this post in an attempt to salvage what can be salvaged.
This isn't what I'm eluding to. What I was trying to say is that most definitely, poor games do not exist well beside Triple A titles. However, in a sea of titles you will find your budget software does much better. This is why Sony's system is the mainstay for crap software. That isn't to say that Sony's hardware only produces crap as you seem to imply that I have implicated. There are many Triple A software developers working on Sony's system - often due to necessity, but often by choice as well.
I still don't understand why publishers that DO make penetration with their titles (IE: Soul Calibur II) fail to follow-up publish the sequel to said series (Soul Calibur III). SC II sold extremely well on the Gamecube and these sales are ignored. Why?
It's your right to disagree. Continue to do so.
Aha. Here's the trick. While you do attempt to undermine my credibility by comparing my 2 million unit count to yours, mine is relevant because it is a time-based numerical value. In other words, I was relating critical acclaim to nearly 2 million units sold THIS YEAR alone in ONE country. That's absolutely fantastic and has no relation whatsoever to five year system sales and a difference of 2 million worldwide. Very key differences indeed.
Nintendo makes bank. Nintendo will continue to make bank will Microsoft drowns in a sea of unprofitability. While they may have "lost" some sort of war in raw numbers, the money continues to come in. Microsoft can't keep this up forever and I do not see their strategy changing. If you have any indication otherwise, feel free to highlight for me. In other words, Nintendo will "win" in the long run, barring unseen market changes at this time. The bottom line is that I see no prospective change for Microsoft. Once again, perhaps you can enlighten me on what exactly is going to change in order for Microsoft to become profitable - aside from more and more switcharoos that the customers and manufacturers have to pay for.
Thoughts?
stealth toilet
Moderator
Before I reply to anything specifically in your post Sartori I would like to ask you what specific factors you believe to be the determinants of success? Obviously you feel profit is important, so I would guess that would be a main one, but are there any others? When you say that Nintendo did not lose the last console war, what is that based on?
I think by answering that simply we can avoid much of our current disagreements. Speaking of which...
They are similar in cost.
It has the light I already mentioned, the full functionality of which I cannot comment on. It is also a new design, more ergonomic, which obviously implies a tweaked manufacturing process at the least. A new manufacturing process might also mean more rigorous testing, added durability, etc. etc. Apparently, this all adds up.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that neither of us is going to come up with a manufacturing process sheet from Microsoft, which therefore makes both my arguement and yours speculation. I do see what you are getting at and, indeed, I admit it is possible. But as you have mentioned earlier, we are both showing different sides of the same coin.
I would also note that Microsoft is not the only company to overprice products (if this is the case). Nintendo GC memory cards, 58 blocks, were the same price as 351 GC memory cards not even 6 months apart. This "tactic," if employed by Microsoft, seems to be standard in this industry, lest I bring up the multitap...
The article you provided said that Microsoft loses about $146 on every console they sell. In effect, the savings the consumer gets on the console could effectively pay for three extra controllers. If Microsoft's aim is to gouge their customers, they sure have a funny way of going about it by essentially paying for $150 of your new console.
The laughing face meant I was being sarcastic.
You don't need to, I understand what you are saying, and I believe there is truth in it (at least to some extent). But I still believe this factor to be irrelevant. While my other post outlined the specific situation of people choosing Xbox's and PS2's instead of GC's, I was speaking in generalities. I am fully aware that many cases (even many more than I may suspect) involve a person choosing two systems, and only leaving one out. But even if this is the case the total amount of systems sold still shows (to me) which system people value more. I don't know, it's late, perhaps I'm not making myself clear or maybe I am missing your point somewhere in there. If you find my post to be redundant please clarify what you mean, because it may be over my head.
I have never heard of poor products selling well, aside from an occasional exception which is nothing more than a blip in the radar. Dart probably has fond memories of talking about this matter with me. If a product sells well then there must be something good about it. People don't buy products they don't like. Perhaps games you found to be "crap software" have sold well, but you are hardly the end all be all judge of videogames. :lol
So the number of systems sold doesn't matter, but the time it takes to sell "x" amount of systems does? Also, the stats I have found have put the Xbox ahead by 3 million units (21 mil. to 18 mil.). A small difference I know, but that equates to about 4 million systems sold per year. How does that factor into your "time vs. systems sold" equation? If 2 million in one year is fantastic, then 4 million in one year must be super fantastic, mustn't it?
Once again, this is all immaterial. You are still comparing systems sold with success, just as I have been doing. I fail to see any "key differences" between the two, so unless you have something else to say which will help push your point, we may just be kicking another dead horse here.
I do not see profit as a determining factor in winning or losing a console war. I do not work for any of these companies, I do not care about profit margins or fiscal quarters. I care about these companies' future success only in so far as they are doing well enough to continue to provide me with the games and service I have come to expect. When I am talking about the "console war" I am basically talking about a popularity contest between the three consoles. I am trying to answer the question "Which console to gamers feel is the best one?" And while no one person can speak for all gamers, I feel that total system sales best shows which console was the most popular, which console won the console war.
Profits and company strategy is an interesting topic to discuss, and I will answer your questions about Microsoft at a later date, perhaps another thread, but in my opinion they are irrelevant to the discussion of who won the console war. Profit margins, software sales, handheld markets, they're all just ways for Nintendo fans to say that, despite losing the console war, Nintendo is still the best company. Or game developer. Or innovative industry pioneer. It's passing the buck and I'm starting to get frustrated with Nintendo fans who simply won't face facts (and yes, I am well aware the very same thing could be said about me :lol).
These are successes for the company, but whether or not these topics concern the average console gamer is another story altogether. As a console gamer, I don't care which company best stole my money, but I do care about the opinions of other gamers. System sales provide excellent insight into those opinions
I'd like to know that as well.
The GC dissillusioned me. It failed me so many times in so many ways. On the Xbox and PS2, I saw what I was missing out on, and I finally "switched camps" as it were. I still have a great interest in Nintendo and their games, and I want them to be successful, but I find them to be stubbornly arrogant. Microsoft is not perfect, and neither is Sony, but I honestly feel like they are more intuitive to what I am looking for in videogames. They are heading in the same direction. And I feel I am in the majority on this issue as well. If Nintendo would just get some third parties on there console, if they would get the multi-console games that Microsoft and Sony have, if they would provide DVD/CD functionality, and if they didn't force gimmicky ideas like GBA/GC connectivity down my throat, and if they didn't make it blatantly obvious they were price gouging me (memory cards, GC controllers, etc.) I would be in the Nintendo camp again. I could go on, but I'll leave it at this for tonight. As usual, there was more I wanted to say, but another time perhaps.
I think by answering that simply we can avoid much of our current disagreements. Speaking of which...
They are similar in cost.
It has the light I already mentioned, the full functionality of which I cannot comment on. It is also a new design, more ergonomic, which obviously implies a tweaked manufacturing process at the least. A new manufacturing process might also mean more rigorous testing, added durability, etc. etc. Apparently, this all adds up.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that neither of us is going to come up with a manufacturing process sheet from Microsoft, which therefore makes both my arguement and yours speculation. I do see what you are getting at and, indeed, I admit it is possible. But as you have mentioned earlier, we are both showing different sides of the same coin.
I would also note that Microsoft is not the only company to overprice products (if this is the case). Nintendo GC memory cards, 58 blocks, were the same price as 351 GC memory cards not even 6 months apart. This "tactic," if employed by Microsoft, seems to be standard in this industry, lest I bring up the multitap...
The article you provided said that Microsoft loses about $146 on every console they sell. In effect, the savings the consumer gets on the console could effectively pay for three extra controllers. If Microsoft's aim is to gouge their customers, they sure have a funny way of going about it by essentially paying for $150 of your new console.
The laughing face meant I was being sarcastic.
You don't need to, I understand what you are saying, and I believe there is truth in it (at least to some extent). But I still believe this factor to be irrelevant. While my other post outlined the specific situation of people choosing Xbox's and PS2's instead of GC's, I was speaking in generalities. I am fully aware that many cases (even many more than I may suspect) involve a person choosing two systems, and only leaving one out. But even if this is the case the total amount of systems sold still shows (to me) which system people value more. I don't know, it's late, perhaps I'm not making myself clear or maybe I am missing your point somewhere in there. If you find my post to be redundant please clarify what you mean, because it may be over my head.
I have never heard of poor products selling well, aside from an occasional exception which is nothing more than a blip in the radar. Dart probably has fond memories of talking about this matter with me. If a product sells well then there must be something good about it. People don't buy products they don't like. Perhaps games you found to be "crap software" have sold well, but you are hardly the end all be all judge of videogames. :lol
So the number of systems sold doesn't matter, but the time it takes to sell "x" amount of systems does? Also, the stats I have found have put the Xbox ahead by 3 million units (21 mil. to 18 mil.). A small difference I know, but that equates to about 4 million systems sold per year. How does that factor into your "time vs. systems sold" equation? If 2 million in one year is fantastic, then 4 million in one year must be super fantastic, mustn't it?
Once again, this is all immaterial. You are still comparing systems sold with success, just as I have been doing. I fail to see any "key differences" between the two, so unless you have something else to say which will help push your point, we may just be kicking another dead horse here.
I do not see profit as a determining factor in winning or losing a console war. I do not work for any of these companies, I do not care about profit margins or fiscal quarters. I care about these companies' future success only in so far as they are doing well enough to continue to provide me with the games and service I have come to expect. When I am talking about the "console war" I am basically talking about a popularity contest between the three consoles. I am trying to answer the question "Which console to gamers feel is the best one?" And while no one person can speak for all gamers, I feel that total system sales best shows which console was the most popular, which console won the console war.
Profits and company strategy is an interesting topic to discuss, and I will answer your questions about Microsoft at a later date, perhaps another thread, but in my opinion they are irrelevant to the discussion of who won the console war. Profit margins, software sales, handheld markets, they're all just ways for Nintendo fans to say that, despite losing the console war, Nintendo is still the best company. Or game developer. Or innovative industry pioneer. It's passing the buck and I'm starting to get frustrated with Nintendo fans who simply won't face facts (and yes, I am well aware the very same thing could be said about me :lol).
These are successes for the company, but whether or not these topics concern the average console gamer is another story altogether. As a console gamer, I don't care which company best stole my money, but I do care about the opinions of other gamers. System sales provide excellent insight into those opinions
I'd like to know that as well.
The GC dissillusioned me. It failed me so many times in so many ways. On the Xbox and PS2, I saw what I was missing out on, and I finally "switched camps" as it were. I still have a great interest in Nintendo and their games, and I want them to be successful, but I find them to be stubbornly arrogant. Microsoft is not perfect, and neither is Sony, but I honestly feel like they are more intuitive to what I am looking for in videogames. They are heading in the same direction. And I feel I am in the majority on this issue as well. If Nintendo would just get some third parties on there console, if they would get the multi-console games that Microsoft and Sony have, if they would provide DVD/CD functionality, and if they didn't force gimmicky ideas like GBA/GC connectivity down my throat, and if they didn't make it blatantly obvious they were price gouging me (memory cards, GC controllers, etc.) I would be in the Nintendo camp again. I could go on, but I'll leave it at this for tonight. As usual, there was more I wanted to say, but another time perhaps.