Fortune Magazine: How Nintendo is beating Sony and Microsoft

[Vigilance]

Personally, Microsoft shouldn't be in the business of doing game consoles in the first place. They should focus on making computer replacing game consoles.

But NOOOOOOOO!!! For a nerd, Gates is dumb.

The thing is though, PC gaming is in serious decline until you look at MMOs. The money is in MMO memberships and console game license fees.

So MS had the choice of taking on WoW, taking on Sony, or trying something totally new. I think they made a pretty reasonable choice myself.

And as far as their consoles go, I never had an X-Box, but Im on the verge of buying a 360. It interests me WAY more than the PS3.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

When I said I thought the Wii was going to be the dominant console of this generation of systems, I was told I was a Nintendo fanboy who just didn't understand the appeal of high-end electronics, HD TV, Blue Ray etc. by folks on this board.

I was also told I was silly for thinking the PS3 would be a disaster because of its price point and lack of features (relative to the 360). Cause... you know... it's the Playstation. How could it fail? Even if it is overpriced and loses all its non-Sony exclusives (like GTA especially).

Yeah, I remember that never ending debate.

However I will stand by my statements - Wii is a damned silly name! (Not very constructive, but still true.)

If Oblivion was available for the Wii they might almost have had me.... You look like a complete idiot when using the controller, but it is fun.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ranger REG]

Yeah, I remember that never ending debate.

However I will stand by my statements - Wii is a damned silly name! (Not very constructive, but still true.)

I'm already over the silly name like I'm over the "tough little ship" Defiant in DS9 (I initially didn't liked it but now I'd rather have that over Enterprise-D).

If Nintendo can join with LucasArts and make a lightsaber duel videogame with their controllers, they'll secure their top position.

 

[trancejeremy]

Heh, Nintendo fans sure like to gloat. But still, it's hard to say who is a winner, because all 3 companies are playing different games. And it's still early yet - remember, the PSP was actually beating the DS until the DS lite came out.

Sony is taking more of a long view - they aim for a console lifespan of about 8-10 years. Since they were the "winner" of the last generation, any new console would be competing with themselves. And indeed, the PS2 has continued to sell extremely well even after the launches of all 3 consoles. It's only just now that the Wii has gone ahead of the PS2 in monthly sales, and the 360 doesn't even do that

But beyond that, Sony has other goals. They want to push their disc format for movies (Blu Ray) and they want to push their vision of a connected home (and beyond), as opposed to Microsoft's. Although sales of either format of HD disc are really lousy, it does look like the PS3 threw the tide in favor of Blu Ray. Maybe it's only temporary, but without the PS3, Blu Ray would be dead already. And we're just starting to see their ideas of connectivity, like how you can now use a PSP to access content (like video or music or photos) on your PC from anywhere in the world over the internet, via a PS3.


Microsoft wants to keep their dominance in the PC realm. They only got into the console business because they feared Sony's vision of the Playstation becoming an internet hub instead of the PC, thus cutting out their sales of $100-200 OSs for just about every home computer sold.

They also want to get a cut of the money from online internet gaming, via Xbox Live. They are begining to introduce that with Shadowrun - you need to buy Live Gold if you are on a PC and want to play against 360 owners. Not exactly enticing, but I'm sure they will roll out more benefits down the road.


Nintendo, OTOH, focuses more on games and profit. They almost always go with underpowered but cheap to produce hardware. And while I personally can't stand most of them, they have always been able to produce critically acclaimed games and even when they've come in "3rd", they've actually make tons of money, because their own games sell very well, and their hardware is cheap.

And I think it does remain to be see if the Wii is more than a fad. I mean, the Wii is literally a turbo charged gamecube with a gimmicky controller (It's arguably less powerful than the original Xbox). While I do think that the desireability of graphics from a consumer's standpoint is somewhat overrated (since the PS2 was basically the weakest of the lot, and it won), at the same time, most of its popularity seems to be with non and casual gamers. I think it will lose some of its luster as more and more people HDTVs and people wonder why the graphics are so bad, and get tired of waggling all the time.

And Sony has yet to launch its Eyetoy for the PS3. Which will apparently allow waggle without using a stick (well, the original PS2 eyetoy actually did as well, but the PS3 one is supposed to be a lot better at tracking movements). Although IMHO it's doubtful that people will buy a PS3 + a fairly expensive add on just for waggle, it could not only do that light saber game, but map your face on your guy in the game as well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My observation is that people are playing with the Wii who have never touched other console games. The interactivity with the controller is so much more appealing to the variety of people I see using it.

I wonder to what extent the Wii's good figures comes from it breaking into brand new consumers, rather than a traditional console consumers market?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Here's an interesting new report.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172235.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1

 

[Vigilance]

Here's an interesting new report.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172235.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1

Interesting.

It basically sounds like they want to be the Wii. More kid friendly games and a $200 price?

Heck... they'd have me for more than that. Im considering getting a 360.

 

[Agamon]

Damn, I've been trying to get my hands on a Wii ever since I got royally screwed out of one as a X-mas present for my nephews by stupid Wally World employees on release day. Makes me wonder if I'll be able to get them one for next Christmas...

 

[Banshee16]

I remember when Nintendo (and I am not a fanboy by a long shot) first revealed the Wii and how the naa sayers replete with gaming Wisdom 1) said it couldn't compete against the XBox 360 and especially the PS3 because 2) that the Wii was for "kids" while the other two were for "adults and teens", 3) the graphics are no where near as good [strange, I always thought replayability and story/concept were vastly more important],and 4) the new controllers though novel weren't very practical.


Now Wii is kicking both of the big boys all over the place it has become outright laughable to read the excuses as to why this is happening from the XBox 360 and PS3 fanboys.

Congrats on Nintendo. A friend of mine just got one for his birthday, and it's pretty cool. Doesn't mean I love my 360 any less. It all comes down to what you like, what games etc. you're interested in. On a personal level, many 360 games appeal to me more than what I've seen on the Wii, or on the older Gamecube.

It's good to see Nintendo doing well, however. The controls are kind of innovative, though I don't think they'll be nearly as good for things like driving or flight sims. Maybe *arcade* games, but not the sims.

And any gaming company that figures a way to get players butts off the couch, and get them to do something that can cause them to start sweating deserves some kudos in my book.

I think the MS reliance on online playing will hurt them in the battle in the long run. The 360 has fantastic games, but many are online playable only, instead of split screen. Some, like Forza 2, Gears of War, NHL 07 etc. can be played split screen...but not enough. A buddy of mine has the 360 also, and we live a few minutes away from each other. But if we can to play together with many of our games, we've got to be sitting in separate homes....kinda hard to open a beer and tease each other when we're away. The Wii is much more conducive to that style of play.

I still like many of the titles on the 360 better....as I did with the original XBox vs. the PS2 and GameCube. The Nintendo games tend to be more "kid-friendly", whereas I tend to prefer more hardcore games. But those preferences likely don't extend as much to the broader gaming public.

In the end, given how much my wife enjoyed the Wii last night, I'll likely need to end up buying one for her at some point anyways. Sheesh....scoring 191 in bowling, and kicking the butts of the rest of us, two games in a row. I guess how can she not like it?

Banshee

 

[LightPhoenix]

Sony is taking more of a long view - they aim for a console lifespan of about 8-10 years. Since they were the "winner" of the last generation, any new console would be competing with themselves. And indeed, the PS2 has continued to sell extremely well even after the launches of all 3 consoles. It's only just now that the Wii has gone ahead of the PS2 in monthly sales, and the 360 doesn't even do that.

While I don't disagree that may be part of their strategy, I don't think it's a strategy that works.

For one, they're competing against themselves - if the PS2 is selling so well, that's (theoretically) cutting into the PS3 market. With the PS3, they're cutting into the well-selling PS2 market. In essence, for all the casual gamers, they're dividing that market and hurting both, which is generally seen as a bad thing to do to yourself. Through supporting the PS2, they're encouraging people not to buy the PS3. Sure, there's a side-effect of encouraging a few people not to buy any current-gen console - but I think those people are a rarity.

That's not the big problem though. The big problem is that the lifespan of the PS2 and PS3 might be 8-10 years, or more - but that's not the cycle that console development has. Irregardless of what Sony plans, Nintendo and Microsoft will push the next-gen on them in five years, or sooner. Sony will have no choice but to match that cycle, and the reason for that is because of the hardcore gamers, who want to have the latest and greatest. So, focusing on that 2-4+ years for the PS3 after they're forced to put out the PS4 doesn't really help them in the long run. While it's certainly possible that the PS3 may repeat the PS2's late-game success, I don't feel that's likely to happen.

So, as I said, I do agree with you that this is part of their strategy, and I do agree with several other points you made. However, I don't think that calling this a long-term strategy makes it become a winning strategy. Contrast that with the Blu-ray player, which definitely has potential to be a winning strategy. The lifespan strategy has little to almost no potential, in my opinion.