Hero-of-Time Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 I have been posting these in the Other Consoles forum as the previous 2 installments were about the 360 and PS3 and now its time to take a look back at the Wiis performance during the year. http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=17&pt=3
darksnowman Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 Aye I've watched the other two and I've been looking forward to what they say about the Wii. Nothing too exciting and they spend the last half of it talking about the PS3 and Xbox 360 anyway lol. It saddened me at the beginning when Geoff got all high and mighty by saying he's a hardcore gamer who plays his PS3 and Xbox 360 alot more than his Wii. So what, he needs to lighten up a bit and enjoy some games where you have to "wave" your arms about, these self proclaimed hardcore madheads are too worried about preserving their nerdy image rather than actually having a bit of fun. As for the Wii's first year, its definitely taken everyone by suprise. Of course it was gonna sell out last Christmas because it was just out and at the very least, us Gamecube owners were gonna snap it up, but for it to be still selling like hotcakes was not predicted.
pedrocasilva Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 Partial as ever. I liked patcher the better, gained some respect for him even; at least he talked about Wii having enough hardcores (regarding Mario Galaxy). N'Gai and his "reviews didn't help Zack and Wiki" blaming the Wii's userbase was ridiculous; I mean... did reviews help Viva Pinata and other games? We always knew Zack and Wiki was hard to be a success, but it's not Wii's fault; it would be even harder on other consoles. He even goes out of his way to say that Wii should loose steam based on Japan and all; he's just a wishful thinker (and if Wii lost steam in Japan, PS3 only gains it from pricedrops, and X360... wow) Bad third party support till the end? well, it shouldn't be like that, given the sales and potential. It might happen, yeah, but it's the third party's fault and stupidity at work.
c0Zm1c Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 It made me laugh when one of them said that this generation's winner shouldn't be decided by sales.
pedrocasilva Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 It made me laugh when one of them said that this generation's winner shouldn't be decided by sales. yeah, that one too. They undo logical rules based on their personal preferences. Patcher was really the better of their group, the one who actually looked thrilled to see Wii next year and the Christmas sales, some others just seemed to be wanting a miracle; "it's not a fad (at least that) but god I hope It was!" seemed to be what they were saying. Also liked the guy who talked about things he didn't cared and thought nobody did, but was proved wrong, I think we all thought that at one point, and still think. Still; "I play Y console more than my Wii"; the recipe for that is really... more AAA titles for the wii, because the thing is leading. Games make a console.
LazyBoy Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 It was alright, not as good as the other two. The two on the left had the same whining attitude that a lot of hardcores have these days because Nintendo is paying a lot of attention to the blue ocean, as opposed to analysing and praising the balls and success of this decision. Related to this, i'm going to see if I can set up a similar thing for the forums. As opposed to a roundtable though I might just get people to send in a short podcast and mould the thing into one file.
Goron_3 Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 It made me laugh when one of them said that this generation's winner shouldn't be decided by sales. Well to some extent it's decided on what's a better business. 3rd parties will consider the winner to them on whatever console will give them better sales. I mean, let's say at one point in time the ps3 is on 30 million and the xbox is on around 25 million...yet the attach rate on 360 is around double that of the ps3, i doubt developers would declare ps3 the winner when software is getting sold better on 360. (hope that made sense).
c0Zm1c Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 Why specifically this generation though? Were attach rates unimportant in previous generations?
Goron_3 Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 Why specifically this generation though? Were attach rates unimportant in previous generations? They were but 100million+ Playstations vs 36million or so N64 means it kinda hard for developers to get torn between the 2 consoles.
c0Zm1c Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 I'm not quite sure what you mean. Surely the same could be said of the Wii versus the PS3 (assuming they have a similar outcome)? Regardless, it's still amusing that, because a Nintendo console is selling the most, some guy says overall sales figures suddenly aren't a factor in which console is the winner of this generation. Let's, for example, say the Wii was to suddenly lose its appeal and eventually languish in third place behind both 360 and PS3. I'm pretty sure sales figures would become an important factor again!
Hero-of-Time Posted December 23, 2007 Author Posted December 23, 2007 I have never thought that if a console sells well that it is the best one. I said this about the DS in another topic how I dont think that much of it even though millions of others do. Its funny as most of the time I have prefered the losing console in these so called wars. Saturn Vs PSOne= Saturn. N64 Vs PSOne= N64 Dreamcast Vs PS2= Dreamcast Snes Vs Megadrive= Snes ( in europe I believe the Megadrive was the console to have ) For me a console should always be remembered by the quality of the games it had rather than the sales figures. In regards to the actual show I thought it was quite good and and they said alot of stuff which I do agree with. ( not gonna get into it as no doubt another flamewar fest will begin )
pedrocasilva Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 Well to some extent it's decided on what's a better business. 3rd parties will consider the winner to them on whatever console will give them better sales. I mean, let's say at one point in time the ps3 is on 30 million and the xbox is on around 25 million...yet the attach rate on 360 is around double that of the ps3, i doubt developers would declare ps3 the winner when software is getting sold better on 360. (hope that made sense). That said, Wii has shorter and cheaper development costs, agravated by the fact that a lot of developers are making low budget or shovelware games. (almost profitable from day one) So... 1 million shovelware sold is diferent than 1 million high budget game sold, in some cases in X360 and PS3 that just covers the costs. So if we go that far, rather than counting the number of sales we have to compare the profits. Wii has been profitable; the only ones not profiting from it are the idiots who don't want to, and said this... A lot of them are just not trying hard enough so far. Its funny as most of the time I have prefered the losing console in these so called wars.Indeed; but... being the most sold console is like a snowball: meaning... PS2 was not my console of choice, neither was PSone, but god, they had some pretty amazing third party games, that obliged me to buy them. All this to say that, with quantity comes quality in short bursts too; obrigatory titles, even; now... with the Wii... it has a lot more games than gamecube, but Nintendo and a few more are the only one delivering like they did on GC (and then some who are supporting it due to it's success) so the condition is pretty much the same for us, as if we were not leading in sales but... WE ARE. It's not as noticeable yet as the support psone and ps2 got from being market leaders, and it feels like it's not because developers are still trying to stray from it and trying to make it not a market leader that it is. And really, this has to stop; I have no queries about the support Psone and PS2 got, but now I want the same and I see here a lot of good conditions and business oportunity's to the developers.
Goron_3 Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 I'm not quite sure what you mean. Surely the same could be said of the Wii versus the PS3 (assuming they have a similar outcome)? Regardless, it's still amusing that, because a Nintendo console is selling the most, some guy says overall sales figures suddenly aren't a factor in which console is the winner of this generation. Let's, for example, say the Wii was to suddenly lose its appeal and eventually languish in third place behind both 360 and PS3. I'm pretty sure sales figures would become an important factor again! What they're saying is that even though the Wii might sell the most, it might not 'win' the hardcore crowd. it's similar to the n64-playstation thing. I got a 64 for games like Goldeneye, Bad Fur day, Mario, Ocarina whereas a lot of people originally got the PS for sports/movie tie ins (although it did have some amazing games, just like the Wii does). So basically, they're saying that even if the Wii still sells the most, the chances are is that it's going to be a second console to most people and only a primary console to casuals.
c0Zm1c Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 For me a console should always be remembered by the quality of the games it had rather than the sales figures. I agree. But the thing is, sales figures (provided they are accurate) are factual, where as quality is highly subjective: it's simply easier to declare a winner using facts than it is an opinion. For the record, I liked the Gamecube more than I did the PS2 and Xbox even though it will always been known as the loser of that generation (because of it having the least overall sales).
pedrocasilva Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 What they're saying is that even though the Wii might sell the most, it might not 'win' the hardcore crowd. it's similar to the n64-playstation thing. I got a 64 for games like Goldeneye, Bad Fur day, Mario, Ocarina whereas a lot of people originally got the PS for sports/movie tie ins (although it did have some amazing games, just like the Wii does). So basically, they're saying that even if the Wii still sells the most, the chances are is that it's going to be a second console to most people and only a primary console to casuals.Thing is... Nobody called the PSone the casual console though, and it was! Now it's used like a insult and a reason for Wii not to lead, but PSone also leaded the hardcore; it reached a point where it was obrigatory. I don't know if the same will happen with Wii (PSone had other facilities, like lack of competition) but still, it's obvious when a platform leads, you have to invest in it; if, the Wii doesn't win the hardcore crowd it's solely the third party's fault, because it's being "at least" the second choice so far to a lot of them. I agree. But the thing is, sales figures (provided they are accurate) are factual, where as quality is highly subjective: it's simply easier to declare a winner using facts than it is an opinion.Indeed, but I'd say it is the sales who a lot of the times define what platform should have "x" exclusive; I bet PS2 wouldn't had so many games if the hardware sales were not that good. I remember it having the smallest attach rate per console though, smaller than GC and Xbox, but it still sold the most, because it was way bigger.
Recommended Posts