An analyst said it so it must be true: PS3 will outsell Wii

[Typhoid]

I stand by my idea that the Wii only sells so much because A) It's cheap because it is technologically inferior B) It is for casual gaming and C) It's great for kids under 12. Meaning parents will buy their kids a Wii rather than a $100 extra for a PS3/360. Not to mention the fact that adults over 40 who've never played games in their life enjoy the interaction of it.

Is that a knock on the Nintendo? Nope. Nintendo does what they do well - market to specific categories of people for lots of profit.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I stand by my idea that the Wii only sells so much because A) It's cheap because it is technologically inferior B) It is for casual gaming and C) It's great for kids under 12. Meaning parents will buy their kids a Wii rather than a $100 extra for a PS3/360. Not to mention the fact that adults over 40 who've never played games in their life enjoy the interaction of it.

Is that a knock on the Nintendo? Nope. Nintendo does what they do well - market to specific categories of people for lots of profit.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[BreakABone]

Oh hey look its my old friend, same ole argument! Long time no see!

First, I shall pose a question, if price and audience are such a huge factor, why didn't the Cube sell as well as either the Xbox or the PS2?

It was always the cheapest of the 3 consoles, sometimes by even a hundred bucks, and as many developers claimed, it catered to different audiences, but that didn't help.

So why is price all of a sudden a deciding factor.

And I know, "Xbox and PS2 didn't cost as much as the Ps3/Xbox 360), and that is a relatively good point, but nor did the Cube cost as much as the Wii.

Also, the Xbox 360 Arcade was cheaper than the Wii for about a year, until last Sept or so, brand confusion aside, why didn't people start picking up the 360 in doves then? I mean going by all logic, it offered pretty much the same thing you would get on the Wii and more.

You get HD sound, you get all them terrific games, you get Netflix, online, friend's list, you name it.

Instead of focusing on why Nintendo won, why don't people look at where Sony and MS screwed the pooch. They jumped started a generation with a prospect that people cared as much about graphics as the vocal "hardcore" gamer, so they had to jack their console launch price to almost double what is usually expected. They both launched with weak software line-ups and really didn't get the ball rolling until half way through their first full year. And they continually cater to a singular audience, and I know for everyone here that isn't a big deal because you are that audience, but in the long run, this generation I believe will have done more harm than good to the industry.

And, that's a random rant at the end, but hell at this point we aren't even talking about the opening post anymore.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Oh hey look its my old friend, same ole argument! Long time no see!

First, I shall pose a question, if price and audience are such a huge factor, why didn't the Cube sell as well as either the Xbox or the PS2?

It was always the cheapest of the 3 consoles, sometimes by even a hundred bucks, and as many developers claimed, it catered to different audiences, but that didn't help.

So why is price all of a sudden a deciding factor.

And I know, "Xbox and PS2 didn't cost as much as the Ps3/Xbox 360), and that is a relatively good point, but nor did the Cube cost as much as the Wii.

Also, the Xbox 360 Arcade was cheaper than the Wii for about a year, until last Sept or so, brand confusion aside, why didn't people start picking up the 360 in doves then? I mean going by all logic, it offered pretty much the same thing you would get on the Wii and more.

You get HD sound, you get all them terrific games, you get Netflix, online, friend's list, you name it.

Instead of focusing on why Nintendo won, why don't people look at where Sony and MS screwed the pooch. They jumped started a generation with a prospect that people cared as much about graphics as the vocal "hardcore" gamer, so they had to jack their console launch price to almost double what is usually expected. They both launched with weak software line-ups and really didn't get the ball rolling until half way through their first full year. And they continually cater to a singular audience, and I know for everyone here that isn't a big deal because you are that audience, but in the long run, this generation I believe will have done more harm than good to the industry.

And, that's a random rant at the end, but hell at this point we aren't even talking about the opening post anymore.

Timing and pricing were still big factors this generation, as is quality. It's hard to really compare it to last generation, because last gen GCN was a lot more geared towards being like the competition and didn't introduce much of anything that hasn't been seen before other then the mini disks.

Also, there wasn't different price level packages last gen like there is this gen. Yeah the Xbox Arcade package was cheap, but it didn't even outsell the full packages 360 offered because people simply didn't want the cheap/incomplete package. Plus, the price advantage that Wii holds this generation over the "complete" Ps3 and 360 packages has generally been better then gamecube had last generation.

My answer to why Nintendo "won" is because they changed their mindset and stopped trying to compete with Microsoft and Sony for the hardcore gamers.. and they offered a package that had a nice gimmick that managed to swoop up the non-hardcore and/or cheap gamers from under Microsoft and Sony.

Now Sony and Microsoft are gonna offer the motion control things to try and give those casual gamers with hardcore tendancies a reason to look twice at Ps3. And we'll see what happens with that.. (Note: I think if both companies advertize it good enough, and offer enough content, Wii's sales will fall. Because now it will actually have to compete.)

And Xantar, yes everyone agrees that the Analyst is full of it. But like I said, a lot of times groups make wild statements like this knowing that people won't take them seriously. 2 years from now, nobody is going to be thinking about this prediction unless it turns out to be right.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Instead of focusing on why Nintendo won, why don't people look at where Sony and MS screwed the pooch. They jumped started a generation with a prospect that people cared as much about graphics as the vocal "hardcore" gamer, so they had to jack their console launch price to almost double what is usually expected. They both launched with weak software line-ups and really didn't get the ball rolling until half way through their first full year. And they continually cater to a singular audience, and I know for everyone here that isn't a big deal because you are that audience, but in the long run, this generation I believe will have done more harm than good to the industry.

You're missing the business point here. Market share domination does not always necessarily equate with success, just as having less market share does not equate with failure. If Microsoft and Sony are able to carve out a sufficient percentage of the video game market, and remain profitable, it is a successful business venture.

I see why you are upset from your own personal vantage point / where you would like to see the video game industry go, but the fact that Nintendo knowingly removed itself from direct competition with Microsoft and Sony was an extremely smart business move, just as Microsoft mainly focusing on the "hardcore" demographic was a smart business move.


On the analyst, I agree his prediction is not realistic. I suppose this may be a high-reward, low-risk prediction, though. From my experience, financial predictions / reports on the video game sector are not taken extremely seriously. Up until a year ago CNBC was routinely misspelling "Xbox," and the anchors and guests had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.