Staticneuron what do you think about point 2) ? Someone can remeber what almost anyone ( developer in primis ) think about DS in 2004 ? DS was a risky gamble, in the first months only Nintendo proved DS'capacities then third-party developed seriously for DS. DS support depend only partially by Nintendo brand ! With Wii third party get on board early on lauch thanks to DS's experience and fantastic E3 2006. GameBoy ( and its software ) target was young male like the product's name mean. PSP ( and its software ) target is young male and guys interesting in multimedia. Nintendo DS ( and its software ) target is EVERYONE ( hardcore too ). Do you note it ? PSP hardware sales are good ( really ) but PSP software sales sucks and PSP development cost is near PS2's ( so there are many PS2 porting to keep low cost). Nintendo , wisely, keep advantage in development cost , product price ,software price and product differentiation. DS software sales are better than PSP and cost are inferior. This is the real motive of DS massive software-house's support. If you want develop for DS, you are force to create a new title ( new IP or old IP with unique features ) that is an EXCLUSIVE. This strategy is aggressively pursuit by Wii. Brand recognition cleary count in the beginning ( Nintendo-fans show Wii Sports to casual ) but if the business strategy is inferior than rivals's stategy then product will fail in the end. Almost forgot : this is a dynamic world, it's very difficult in the VG industry keep the leadership for many decades. Nintendo has the leadership of handheld sector for 25 years but it is the exception that confirm that law ( Nintendo will lose that leadership in the future ). PS: Yeah Eric, I "love" Sean I think he is one of the best VG journalist on the net . See you.

This is a tough one. I hear about people describing how people were hesitant about the DS. But I was in college at the time and I my school was surrounded by 5 other colleges around my school. I had friends in all of them and I never geard a negative reaction to the Wii. My experience was based off of talking to people so it may have been ill recieved elsewhere but my friends and others were excited. Some even mentioning golden sun DS. In the first 3 "Weeks" of the DS releas dev companies such as EA, ubisoft, namco, THQ, success, and sega were there. Under the First year almost every developer under the sun was making games for the DS. Now on thing I will admit the software sales for the PSP is poor but that is not because of ports or the uniqueness of thier titles. It is because the games were just bad. I used to review PSP games and almost every single on was dismal in adition to bad loading times. But I seriously thing in terms of console the target audience nintendo has been shooting for has failed. They have been shooting for "everyone" with non offensive games since the 64. Now I am not one of those who advocate violent games and blood and gore but thats not really mature. I would like to seore mature content coming from nintendo. Thier consoles have been recieving less of my attention for years. The biggest kick I get out of my Wii (aside from zelda) is playing with the slick interface. I know I am lame but it is true. But looking at the sales it clearly shows that a large library of diverse high quality games has worked extremely well for the playstation line and if the Xbox and Wii lines do not adjust , we will see the same result as last generation. I am really tired of seeing shooters for my 360 and want to see more action games. But just being exclusive is not going to sell if people continue to expect great gameplay with lack of depth and story. In my opinion I do not think that will work well at all.

A little commentary/rant on the PS3, and why it'll do better than what some people are giving it credit for. First note: I dislike the PS3, I am a 360 owner, and believe it is the much more superior console. Having said that, the game is not, and won't be over for Sony. Their too big and "smart" of a company for that. The thing about Sony's poor preformance can be attributed to 1 thing: Price. Nothing more or less. $500-$600 consoles don't fare well. However, if I were in Sony's shoes, I really wouldn't be upset or worried. Why? The PS3 isn't meant to be like other consoles and sell 100,000,000 systems on day one. If anything, that would be VERY BAD. Yes you heard me, Sony selling MORE systems is BAD. Why? Price. Sony is LOSING about $200-$300 per unit. At just 1m units, that is $200 million to $300 million. If the PS3 sold 5m units by March, Sony would be looking at losing a billion dollars. Software sales and accessory sales cannot and willnot be able to make up those kinds of sales immediately. Not only that, we have seen that software sales aren't that good. Therefore, Sony is not making much of anything back with software. Having said that, I can see Sony's strategy very well. I agree that it can and will work, although I hate them. They have created a machine that will outlast the Wii and 360. Since Sony is in this generation for the long haul, they cannot mar themselves with huge losses at the beginning. Sony also knows that the secret to this generation is buying out and forging lasting partnerships with certain stuidios, as Sony knows (via old interviews) that this generation will see far more multi-platform gaming. This will taper off Sony's ability for exclusives, but also gives them an edge, as their 1-st party studios are very very good. Not as good as Nintendos, but very very good. Sony's succuess will be in the fact that the PS3 will still carry, and will the entire generation, nearly every multi-platform game. That gives them a basis to build a good library on. They will improve it by the few exclusives they will still have by third parties (S-E, Namco-Bandai, ect), and then push alot of very-profitable first party titles. Here's the way I see it: The Wii will have a 3 year lifespan, that will do very very well. However, at some point, the PS3/360 will have the advantage due to being able to easily emulate the Wiis controls if that is seriously needed, and at that point, the Wii's graphical incompotence will hurt it (but thats after it sells about 40m units). The 360 will be a great strong middle-road console, and have a 4-5yr lifespan, depending on how well MS actually decides to Support it when the next Box comes out. The PS3 will have a 5-7yr lifespan. Look at the PS2, it is the best example of Sony's strategy. The PS2 sold 8m units in the US in 2006. That's 6 years after launch. It will continue to sell well in the US, and might even sell 4-5m units this year. The PS3 is hoping to do the same by being the most powerful system this generation. Since sony is banking on such a long lifespan, the first year or two don't matter as much as the 2nd and 3rd years. What will matter is when your DMCs, your Gran Turismos, Final Fantasies, and your other AAAAA titles come out. If the PS3 sticks around for 4+ years, consumers will see a very strong libary and buy it, when Sony is actually turning a profit on each console, making income off Blu-Ray sales, and doing better than the suck-fest they are now. Having said that all, I will re-iterate my stance on this generation, as I have since April of 2006 with the same numbers of nearly a year ago. PS3 - 70-75m units in lifespan 360 - 55-60m units in lifespan Wii - 47.5m-55m units in lifespan Again, as much as I hate Sony, they do have a plan, and it's a good one, as they can't really compete against the Wii and the 360. The 360 is graphically superior on Multi-ports thus far, and the Wii is more innovative. The PS3 needs the long haul to end up pulling the rabbit out of the hat. And that's exactly what their aiming for.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A little commentary/rant on the PS3, and why it'll do better than what some people are giving it credit for. First note: I dislike the PS3, I am a 360 owner, and believe it is the much more superior console. Having said that, the game is not, and won't be over for Sony. Their too big and "smart" of a company for that. The thing about Sony's poor preformance can be attributed to 1 thing: Price. Nothing more or less. $500-$600 consoles don't fare well. However, if I were in Sony's shoes, I really wouldn't be upset or worried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, PS3s would certainly be selling out if they had 300/400 price points like the 360. I have no doubt about that. But I think there is also a lack of compelling software. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? The PS3 isn't meant to be like other consoles and sell 100,000,000 systems on day one. If anything, that would be VERY BAD. Yes you heard me, Sony selling MORE systems is BAD. Why? Price. Sony is LOSING about $200-$300 per unit. At just 1m units, that is $200 million to $300 million. If the PS3 sold 5m units by March, Sony would be looking at losing a billion dollars. Software sales and accessory sales cannot and willnot be able to make up those kinds of sales immediately. Not only that, we have seen that software sales aren't that good. Therefore, Sony is not making much of anything back with software. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sony seem to be doing their damnedest to get systems out there though. If they weren't trying to establish a solid userbase right now, they wouldn't have launched now. And the worst thing that can happen for them is that they ship units which sit on store shelves. They lose money on the sale, and don't expand their installed base. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having said that, I can see Sony's strategy very well. I agree that it can and will work, although I hate them. They have created a machine that will outlast the Wii and 360. Since Sony is in this generation for the long haul, they cannot mar themselves with huge losses at the beginning. Sony also knows that the secret to this generation is buying out and forging lasting partnerships with certain stuidios, as Sony knows (via old interviews) that this generation will see far more multi-platform gaming. This will taper off Sony's ability for exclusives, but also gives them an edge, as their 1-st party studios are very very good. Not as good as Nintendos, but very very good. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sony does have an edge on exclusives over MS, due both to faaar superior 1st party studios, and due to access to Japanese developers. But if Sony is planning for a lot of multi-platform games out there, wouldn't a system which demands exclusive titles due to a different control mechanism be very threatening? While Sony and MS fight each other for market share of non-exclusives, or pay lots of money to get exclusives, Nintendo gets situations like we're seeing with Sonic right now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sony's succuess will be in the fact that the PS3 will still carry, and will the entire generation, nearly every multi-platform game. That gives them a basis to build a good library on. They will improve it by the few exclusives they will still have by third parties (S-E, Namco-Bandai, ect), and then push alot of very-profitable first party titles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, PS3 will be carrying every multi-platform game. But if they underperform early on, like you suggest, they WILL begin to lose some of them. They'll certainly have better exclusives than Microsoft. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the way I see it: The Wii will have a 3 year lifespan, that will do very very well. However, at some point, the PS3/360 will have the advantage due to being able to easily emulate the Wiis controls if that is seriously needed, and at that point, the Wii's graphical incompotence will hurt it (but thats after it sells about 40m units). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second either MS or Sony move to copy the Wiimote, just count them out completely. Only if Wii performs extremely well do they need to emulate it, and at that point Wii will still be much cheaper, its greater installed base will mean it has tons of support, and it will still be expensive to port games from Wii to PS3/360 or vice versa. At the best, a "PSThwii-mote" would get PS3 back on even footing for non-exclusives like Tiger Woods. But it doesn't help them get a substantial catalog of Mii-supporting "stand and swing" titles which Wii is already developing, and which are already flying off the shelf in Japan. If Wii goes 3 years, and is the leading console, there is no reason its success won't just continue to snowball, as happened to the graphically inferior PS2, PS1, NES, etc. The lack of HD certainly isn't hurting Wii in Japan, the only major videogame market where HD is widespread. I think Wii goes 5 years, when it gets cut short by its HD replacement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 360 will be a great strong middle-road console, and have a 4-5yr lifespan, depending on how well MS actually decides to Support it when the next Box comes out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think MS are planning a 6 year lifespan before the next XBox debuts, so that they can actually make some profits in the later years. They don't want to keep replacing the XBox every 4 years; thats just too expensive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The PS3 will have a 5-7yr lifespan. Look at the PS2, it is the best example of Sony's strategy. The PS2 sold 8m units in the US in 2006. That's 6 years after launch. It will continue to sell well in the US, and might even sell 4-5m units this year. The PS3 is hoping to do the same by being the most powerful system this generation. Since sony is banking on such a long lifespan, the first year or two don't matter as much as the 2nd and 3rd years. What will matter is when your DMCs, your Gran Turismos, Final Fantasies, and your other AAAAA titles come out. If the PS3 sticks around for 4+ years, consumers will see a very strong libary and buy it, when Sony is actually turning a profit on each console, making income off Blu-Ray sales, and doing better than the suck-fest they are now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GT and FF might have been some of the most important games of previous generations, but so were Mario and Zelda on the SNES and NES. Just a couple huge key exclusive franchises aren't enough. The leading system will be the one that can garner the most overall support, and how is the PS3 going to do that if it is underperforming in the first 2 years, but remains the most expensive system to develop for? BTW, the PS2 did not sell that much last year. It sold well under 6 million in the US. And the "strategy" you are describing for PS3 is not remotely what happened with PS2. PS2, despite the launch issues, shipped over 6 million units in 2000, and then shipped over 18 million in 2001. At the end of 2001, when GC and XB had just launched, there were nearly 25 million PS2s out there. This is the polar opposite of what you're talking about with PS3. Oh, and the PS2s huge sustained sales came despite the fact that it was the LEAST powerful system on the market. Almost like power didn't matter at all!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having said that all, I will re-iterate my stance on this generation, as I have since April of 2006 with the same numbers of nearly a year ago. PS3 - 70-75m units in lifespan 360 - 55-60m units in lifespan Wii - 47.5m-55m units in lifespan Again, as much as I hate Sony, they do have a plan, and it's a good one, as they can't really compete against the Wii and the 360. The 360 is graphically superior on Multi-ports thus far, and the Wii is more innovative. The PS3 needs the long haul to end up pulling the rabbit out of the hat. And that's exactly what their aiming for. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I expect the Wii will win handily, and the PS3 will pass the 360 and come in a solid second.

Since when does a system at launch have compelling software? Very few, if any system ever in history has had more than 1 great game at launch. The Wii had Zelda: TP, which was a GC game that should of been released in April, but got pushed back so it'd sell on the Wii. Every system has a lack of compelling software. The PS3s price is what hurts the tier ratios, not the software itself. The 360 had a mediocre lineup, but most titles ended up selling very well, with CoD2 selling over 1m in the US alone. Sony is trying their best to get their systems out there, but there is only a certain number you can put on retailer's shelves - if a system or game isn't selling, the company won't buy the systems from the manufacturer, which chains back to slow(er) factory production. If Sony slowed production for some reason, it wouldn't delay price decreases. Sony will goto 65nm at some point this year, which will drop their costs considerably....After that point, I believe, Sony will do everything they can to get sales, since they will then have very very strong software lineups and won't be hurt too much on sales. Same reason the 360 had the whole retailer price drops @ Christmas. Yes, but Sonic games are no longer big moneymakers, and games like Assassains Creed, Guitar Hero, EA franchise games, Tom Clancy games, Grand Theft Auto, ect ect sell far more units than some exclusives do. Some IPs are better, and the Wii getting 1 Sega exclusive isn't going to Sony as bad as making sure GTAIV is still day-and-date with the 360, as well as their other 50 games that are multi-port this year. Sony will fight over non-exclusives that SELL, as opposed to letting crappy titles like Sonic go. The last multi-port Sonic that just came out did pitiful.... Right, and I don't doubt that. However, a dev might wait a few months before deciding if a system is truely underpreforming or not. When you get to Christmas 07 and see where Sony is....Thats when it'll matter....Not as much so in January or March. Dev kit support and ease of use is what matters to dev costs moreso than if your going from Wii to PS3, or whatnot. Thats why the 360 is garnering alot of PC-Only games. MS has a very good system for enticing devs to work on both PC and 360. If Sony, MS or Wii get a good kit to devs to work on titles that use Wii-motes on PS3, or whatever (Im not saying they should do that crap now, but it's not a bad idea to expand your options). Either way, the Wii-mote might just be one of those Rumble Pack type things. After awhile everyone will have it. I could easily see a 360 controller using that headset port to support some sort of Wii-esque function. Should they do that? Who knows, but when Sony copied the N64s rumble pack or joysticks, I never really thought Sony was doomed. Companies copy technology for the good or bad - Nintendo ended up being forced to turn to CD-based storage mediums, but I dont consider that a ripoff. Nintendo is still just using a 3d mouse and laserpointer....It's not really something thats so unique that it's a Nintendo-only item. I would argue that MS might support it for 4-5 years, then another year after the next box comes out. Console life spans (on average) are 5 years + whatever life it has after it's discontinued. And I agree that the one that preforms the best will win...But again, my reasoning on Sony doing well is that they'll in the end have a very strong library and rather cheap at some point down the road. The main advantage with the PS3 h/w wise is that it won't do poorly in any 1 region....Unlike what has happened with the 360. The Wii is really up in the air about what regions it preforms well in. I apologize, it sold *only* 5.5m units this year in the US, and 36m units of software. Don't you consider that amazing for a system that's 6 years old? I see the PS3 as a console that's h/w sales will start out slow and horrendus and keep gaining momentum for the next few years. Don't get me wrong, the PS3 is no where near the beast PS2 will be, and Sony will get their rear ends handed to them by both the Wii and 360 in terms of what actually changes in the market place (as a PS4 wouldn't really be a great idea with uber-powerful hardware next time around) Exactly how is the Wii going to sell that much? In Japan, I easily understand that it will kill everything else, but how would it end up winning the US and Europe as well? The Wii would have to atleast sell over 60m units if not more to win the market place, if not more - and it'll have to do that without a single uber-title on the console. Remember, the Wii still doesn't have 3rd party support. Yes, DQIX is going to DS, but thats not Wii. The problem I see is that the Wii is still going to have the kiddie nametag on it, and Nintendo has done nothing to change that around, even with the new controller. Wii won't have FF, GTA, Halo, and won't garner the same support that EA titles have got from the PS and Xbox brands...As well as the other hundred titles out there. Nintendo systems sell Nintendo software, and that most likely won't change. The biggest, most hyped Wii game that was 3rd party still has barely sold 400k units w/w (Red Steel) versus Zelda selling somewhere near 4x that....How can a dev support that wholeheartedly when the biggest 3rd party game for the PS3 (GTA SA) sold 6m copies in the US alone, or CoD2 selling 1.5m units in the US alone (which outside no other 3rd party game has sold that well for being a launch title)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since when does a system at launch have compelling software? Very few, if any system ever in history has had more than 1 great game at launch. The Wii had Zelda: TP, which was a GC game that should of been released in April, but got pushed back so it'd sell on the Wii. Every system has a lack of compelling software. The PS3s price is what hurts the tier ratios, not the software itself. The 360 had a mediocre lineup, but most titles ended up selling very well, with CoD2 selling over 1m in the US alone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'd argue that Wii Sports and Zelda:TP is the best combo of two launch games since Duck Hunt and SMB for the US launch of the NES. Its telling you didn't mention Wii Sports though, since that is a faaar more important game than Zelda. Zelda may have an 85% attach ratio off the bat, but Wii Sports will be important in the long term. Look at how Nintendogs is performing--better over holiday 2006 than 2005! Hitting an underserved market is a powerful thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sony is trying their best to get their systems out there, but there is only a certain number you can put on retailer's shelves - if a system or game isn't selling, the company won't buy the systems from the manufacturer, which chains back to slow(er) factory production. If Sony slowed production for some reason, it wouldn't delay price decreases. Sony will goto 65nm at some point this year, which will drop their costs considerably....After that point, I believe, Sony will do everything they can to get sales, since they will then have very very strong software lineups and won't be hurt too much on sales. Same reason the 360 had the whole retailer price drops @ Christmas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well if Sony isn't getting as many orders for systems that they anticipated getting, of course it is costly for them. The ever-dropping price of components will help the production cost freefall for several years anyways though... But we've been told not to expect the price cuts to come quickly. Some are saying this spring or summer; I think they're nuts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, but Sonic games are no longer big moneymakers, and games like Assassains Creed, Guitar Hero, EA franchise games, Tom Clancy games, Grand Theft Auto, ect ect sell far more units than some exclusives do. Some IPs are better, and the Wii getting 1 Sega exclusive isn't going to Sony as bad as making sure GTAIV is still day-and-date with the 360, as well as their other 50 games that are multi-port this year. Sony will fight over non-exclusives that SELL, as opposed to letting crappy titles like Sonic go. The last multi-port Sonic that just came out did pitiful.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some non-exclusive EA games (Tiger Woods comes to mind) could likely have the biggest market share on Wii, and some others (Tom Clancy, GH), publishers and developers aren't going to have any issues bringing to Wii. Sonic I believe has a sales draw over 1 million, even now, depending on the previews. My whole point was that Sega intended to bring the same Sonic game to all three systems, but instead brought Wii an exclusive, and now Sonic Wii has a lot of hype, while the other version got panned and totally bombed. If Wii has a strong start, and pubs and devs want to make games for it, lots of them are going to end up being exclusives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Right, and I don't doubt that. However, a dev might wait a few months before deciding if a system is truely underpreforming or not. When you get to Christmas 07 and see where Sony is....Thats when it'll matter....Not as much so in January or March. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is true. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dev kit support and ease of use is what matters to dev costs moreso than if your going from Wii to PS3, or whatnot. Thats why the 360 is garnering alot of PC-Only games. MS has a very good system for enticing devs to work on both PC and 360. If Sony, MS or Wii get a good kit to devs to work on titles that use Wii-motes on PS3, or whatever (Im not saying they should do that crap now, but it's not a bad idea to expand your options). Either way, the Wii-mote might just be one of those Rumble Pack type things. After awhile everyone will have it. I could easily see a 360 controller using that headset port to support some sort of Wii-esque function. Should they do that? Who knows, but when Sony copied the N64s rumble pack or joysticks, I never really thought Sony was doomed. Companies copy technology for the good or bad - Nintendo ended up being forced to turn to CD-based storage mediums, but I dont consider that a ripoff. Nintendo is still just using a 3d mouse and laserpointer....It's not really something thats so unique that it's a Nintendo-only item. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Except with PlayStation and N64, PS had the early lead, it was the easier to develop for system, and Sony were empowering third parties, while Nintendo was restricting them. Just because Sony, for their own good, were able to mimic Nintendo's controller innovations (and with rumble, even one-up them in the implementation), doesn't mean that they'll be able to do the same thing now, when they have the hardest to develop for system, and there are some third party developers openly rooting for their failure! And about 6.8 gazillion times more important than simply mimicing Nintendo's controller innovations, is getting the games which hit underserved markets. Nintendo has proven with DS that they know how to get at "non-gamers." It remains to be seen if they flock to a home console the same way they did to a handheld, but just imitating the Wiimote won't give Sony a killer app like Wii Sports. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would argue that MS might support it for 4-5 years, then another year after the next box comes out. Console life spans (on average) are 5 years + whatever life it has after it's discontinued. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you listen to Peter Moore recently, all hes talking about is profitabiliity, profitability, profitability. The E&D division is supposed to start making a profit sometime this year, after something like 6 billion in losses. I think Moore wants to maintain that profitability for as long as possible. If XBox keeps losing money, due to aggressive price cuts, or due to aggressive console launches with short life spans, I think its days are numbered. Which is why I think 360 will remain MSs top box for about 6 years like PS2, not 4 like XBox. I think they can sell systems for that long too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And I agree that the one that preforms the best will win...But again, my reasoning on Sony doing well is that they'll in the end have a very strong library and rather cheap at some point down the road. The main advantage with the PS3 h/w wise is that it won't do poorly in any 1 region....Unlike what has happened with the 360. The Wii is really up in the air about what regions it preforms well in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, PS3 is doing pretty damn poorly in Japan off the bat. Japan may flock back to Nintendo the same way they left them 10 years ago. I would point out that the systems Japan has bought into right away, and flocked to en masse, the rest of the world has often followed to over the next few years (NES, PSone, DS). It is certainly up in the air if Nintendo can have remarkable performance in Europe. They never have, historically. I'd have more questions about that region though if not for DS, which will end up outperforming GBA in that region. I wouldn't be surprised if the final numbers don't show the kind of complete region-for-region WW domination that PS2 showed. But I think the world is getting smaller too, and I think that the games Nintendo is focusing on will have appeal in every region. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I apologize, it sold *only* 5.5m units this year in the US, and 36m units of software. Don't you consider that amazing for a system that's 6 years old? I see the PS3 as a console that's h/w sales will start out slow and horrendus and keep gaining momentum for the next few years. Don't get me wrong, the PS3 is no where near the beast PS2 will be, and Sony will get their rear ends handed to them by both the Wii and 360 in terms of what actually changes in the market place (as a PS4 wouldn't really be a great idea with uber-powerful hardware next time around) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PS2s sustained sales are certainly amazing. I think they are evidence of the fact that the power of a system doesn't matter in the long term. I wonder what makes you think that an uber-powerful PS4 wouldn't be a good idea in the future, but that an uber-powerful PS3 is going to work out right now? Its never worked out that way in the past, it won't be a good idea in the future, but being super-powered will help this one system reverse its own momentum a couple years into its cycle? Hm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exactly how is the Wii going to sell that much? In Japan, I easily understand that it will kill everything else, but how would it end up winning the US and Europe as well? The Wii would have to atleast sell over 60m units if not more to win the market place, if not more - and it'll have to do that without a single uber-title on the console. Remember, the Wii still doesn't have 3rd party support. Yes, DQIX is going to DS, but thats not Wii. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Without a single "uber-title"? Well, give Nintendo SOME credit. They've got 4 older franchises they can tap for a potential 5-million seller in Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. Those alone weren't remotely enough for Gamecube, of course. (They helped the most in NA, by far, which is also the place where DS has taken off slowest.) But Nintendo is betting on games like Wii Sports far more than any of those franchises. Look at what they're doing with DS: games like Nintendogs, NSMB, Brain Training and Animal Crossing have already outperformed everything except for Pokemon on GBA. These exact franchises might not all transfer their popularity to the Wii, but don't you think Nintendo will be able to replicate, to some degree, the success of these types of games on Wii? The third party support will be slow in some cases. But the success of Wii isn't dependant on all the traditional old franchises. It doesn't play by PlayStation's terms. Pathetic, marginalized little companies like Hudson and Majesco are going to thrive on Wii in the early going, and when the opportunity is more apparent with a broad Wii installed base and cheaper, shorter development cycles, the support will snowball. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The problem I see is that the Wii is still going to have the kiddie nametag on it, and Nintendo has done nothing to change that around, even with the new controller. Wii won't have FF, GTA, Halo, and won't garner the same support that EA titles have got from the PS and Xbox brands...As well as the other hundred titles out there. Nintendo systems sell Nintendo software, and that most likely won't change. The biggest, most hyped Wii game that was 3rd party still has barely sold 400k units w/w (Red Steel) versus Zelda selling somewhere near 4x that....How can a dev support that wholeheartedly when the biggest 3rd party game for the PS3 (GTA SA) sold 6m copies in the US alone, or CoD2 selling 1.5m units in the US alone (which outside no other 3rd party game has sold that well for being a launch title) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nintendo are certainly getting rid of the "kiddie nametag," but they aren't doing it by getting more "mature" titles. I'll give you a hint: Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, Shrek, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman and Harry Potter were the top performing movies in the US each of the last 6 years. American Idol is both the #1 (Tuesday) and #2 (Wednesday) show in America. The Sims is the best selling game of the decade on PCs, Pokemon and Nintendogs on handhelds. Yet on home consoles, GTA, Halo and Smash Bros. were the top titles on each console... Certainly these aren't games that go beyond a certain audience... Mostly males, aged 14-34... Call it a hunch, but I think this "for everyone" stuff might have some legitimacy in the home console world like it does in other mediums. Now, I assume you meant to say "Nintendo software sells Nintendo systems", and in the past, that has resulted in no less than 5 Nintendo consoles or handhelds selling ~50 million or more units worldwide. DS will become the 6th, sometime this year. And after turnover at the highest levels of the company, a restructering of their development teams, increased funding for software R&D, a focus on software which is both quicker to develop and has greater sales potential because it hits underserved markets, and third party support which actually IS becoming greater than what Nintendo has had recently, I think Wii will become the 7th. Nice of you to compare GTA:SA to freakin' Red Steel, btw. Jeez. An original IP which got lukewarm reviews, and on a system that launched 2 months ago, compared to GTA? When third parties brought quality games in Nintendo's past, those games sold. Street Fighter, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy. But face it, third parties just didn't bring a lot of great games to GC or N64. It has nothing to do with being scared to go against Nintendo's own titles; if Nintendo's own titles were that good and that popular, Nintendo would be market leader! Look at how the top N64 titles were just as popular as the top PSone titles; it highlights the fact that there is plenty of space for third parties on a Nintendo system, even if they won't have the very top titles. And Nintendo, with a very full plate of 2007 titles, are obviously planning on the possibility that it will take third parties a while to show up. Red Steel's sequel is supposedly already green-lighted anyways... So I think Ubi were satisfied.

Yet in the longer run, what will matter more is what follows up on Wii:Sports and Wii Play, versus the launch titles themselves. SMB64 was a launch title that sold 6m+ units....But it didn't win the console wars. My original point is what will matter is this year and next years lineup...Sony has a pretty good lineup, just like the Wii does. Some might be exclusives, however, with the controller scheme, it might also be cost-prohibitive to design on Wii if it's not guarenteed a very good return. Actually, if you look at any chart from 95-96 and so on, the N64 had a huge lead. The N64 outsold the PS1 about 2:1 for the first year or two. When Resident Evil, FF7 and other games like those came out, thats when the PS1 really took off. I agree that getting the non-gamers is critical, but the fact is, by getting them, you can easily be sacrificing other sections of gamers. The Wii will obviously pander to the fanboys, and they are trying to get the non-gamers, but what about the other 60 or 70m people that supported the PS2 due to the software library. Where will the middle-road gamers go? Not quite. The Xbox is a good example - no 500k units in Japan vs. 25m units in the USA and Europe. The same can be said for Sega Master System and Genesis. The Genesis held a fraction of the Japaneese market, but in the US and Europe, did considerably better than Nintendo for quite some time. But to what extent will Nintendo games appeal? They have garnered a great number of casual hits and child-friendly games, but thats only a portion of the market. Nintendogs and such do very well, but so did Halo 2, GTA, Final Fantasy, Ghost Recon and other non-Nintendo games. Again, as my first statement about where h/w will stand, no one region (except for Wii in Japan) will show utter and brutal dominance like what the PS2 did. The world isn't getting smaller, it's getting bigger. There are markets that are both untapped, and have radically different tastes in games. Japan has no PC gaming market, but in the US and Europe it's huge. Koreans have a gigantic MMO community, and are huge Lineage and World of Warcraft fans - most Japaneese gamers haven't even heard of those games. And likewise, the rest of the world doesn't get J-dating sims. But being relevant in power compared to the other systems of the generation, and having a strong library do. We didn't see the N64 try to compete with the PS2. In 3 years, however, I feel like Nintendo will be doing just that against the PS3 and 360. Graphics aren't the be all end all, but they do have relevancy. If they did not, then how would Final Fantasy VII do so well, or Gears of War? Both were graphically defining games of their generations, and showed what next-gen could do, and sold well, despite them really not offering a huge boon to innovative and new gameplay. Very few marketing strategies and system properties work twice in a row. Sony picked a strategy that was diametrically opposed to Nintendos weak-but-innovative strategy, and 360s get-it-out-fast strategy. Even if I am right and the PS4 debuts in the wake of a PS3 that has only 60% of the PS2's marketshare, another power-hog won't work. It won't work for the PS3 either. Mind you, just because I think that the PS3 will out-sell the Wii and 360 does NOT mean it's the "winner". Going from 130m units sold to 70-75m units in just a few years is HORRIBLE. Sony is guarenteed to leave this generation a crying whimpering baby and a shadow of it's former self, just like Nintendo did exactly 10 years before when they launched the POS-64. I am sorry, I meant to say uber 3rd party title. 3rd parties are what make or break systems. Even though their effect will be less than it was in the 90s and early 2000s, it will still matter. The Wii still doesn't have a huge 3rd party signing exclusivity rights with Nintendo for the Wii. Yes, many more companies will come on board, but they won't hand over ther ultimate selling franchises. Why? Name ONE 3rd party game on a Nintendo console that has done over 2m units in the past 10 years. That, my friend, is why I am severely sceptical of how the Wii will beat the 360 and PS3. Both systems have proven track records with 3rd parties. Nintendo is abhorrent with 3rd parties, expecially in the past 10 years. I am sure the Wii will have much better 3rd party support. However, I still dont see it reaching 360 and/or PS3 level(s). The Wii has the great first party support, but again, 3rd parties produce the bulk of games, regardless of which 1st party you enjoy. IF the Wii does over 50m, it will only be the 3rd Nintendo console to do that - and the SNES didn't massively over-do 50m. (PS1 or PS2 did both NES+SNES numbers) My statement was comparing major 3rd party titles on various systems. Again, compare the top 5, 3rd party titles on PS1 to N64 - huge difference. Top tier Nintendo games have ALWAYS been Nintendo games. Look at Final Fantasy - the highest selling FF on NES and SNES was 2.5m units. The first FF on another console did 8m+ units. Huge difference. As for Dragon Quest, it seems to have done well on any system, like you said, but it does do better on Playstation.

" We will never see RE5, a sequel to the best 3rd party offering on the Gamecube because of the path Nintendo has taken." Yeah, Wii owners will not play to multiplatform RE5 (360,Ps3) but they will play to RE:Umbrella Chronicles. RE:UC is a "RE4 like" Wii EXCLUSIVE by Capcom ... Do you know ? Is so important graphic for you ? I think with 128 bit console "3D engine" has achieved "2D engine"'s perfection on the gameplay level. I'm glad to see graphical improvments but I'm more glad to see improvement in other areas such as AI and gameplay. I'm tired to seize the same controller that I seized for 20 long years ( from Nes onward ) ! I agree with Erik for the rest ( we have very similar ideas ). Nintendo has the strenght to push their revolutionary system by themselves. Wii cost advantage is already a lure for many publisher ( Ubisoft in primis ) and with more success more publisher will get on board on Wii day in day out. Is Sony over ? No, not yet but time will tell. IMHO Wii is a smart project that can overshadow PS3/Xbox360 market in next years.

--------------------------------------------------------------- Yet in the longer run, what will matter more is what follows up on Wii:Sports and Wii Play, versus the launch titles themselves. SMB64 was a launch title that sold 6m+ units....But it didn't win the console wars. My original point is what will matter is this year and next years lineup...Sony has a pretty good lineup, just like the Wii does. --------------------------------------------------------------- SM64 was a launch title that sold 11m+ units. Nintendo had the top tier games to match everything on PSone, but it didn't have the huge catalog behind it. The Wii is the only system developers can make any money on with a "B" game without porting it. Its also selling faster than either of the other consoles in the early going. Its the only system which is realistic for a smaller or marginalized developer to work for. If Wii remains the fastest selling system, publishers will be down with it. --------------------------------------------------------------- Some might be exclusives, however, with the controller scheme, it might also be cost-prohibitive to design on Wii if it's not guarenteed a very good return. --------------------------------------------------------------- Its much cheaper to develop on Wii's controller than to develop for HD. You've got third parties estimating it will cost 6.5 million extra to upscale graphics on PS3 over PS2 games, and sell 500,000 copies to break even, and then you've got one man development teams getting games out in time for Wii's European launch. --------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, if you look at any chart from 95-96 and so on, the N64 had a huge lead. The N64 outsold the PS1 about 2:1 for the first year or two. When Resident Evil, FF7 and other games like those came out, thats when the PS1 really took off. --------------------------------------------------------------- What are you talking about? Look at the yearly summary charts on this very site. They say that N64 NEVER led PSone in either Japan or NA, and never beat it in a single year, either. N64 had a superior launch, due to being an established brand, but thats it. The big lack of games hurt N64 from day one. --------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that getting the non-gamers is critical, but the fact is, by getting them, you can easily be sacrificing other sections of gamers. The Wii will obviously pander to the fanboys, and they are trying to get the non-gamers, but what about the other 60 or 70m people that supported the PS2 due to the software library. Where will the middle-road gamers go? --------------------------------------------------------------- A lot of them will go to Wii, because they can afford it and because they can play it with their girlfriend. Nintendo has lost a big part of the existing gamer base over the last 2 generations already, when that was the chief thing they were competing for. The existing "middle road gamer" is still the second large group that they'll hit after the "non-gamer" (which is by far the largest group of all: game systems have never reached even 40% penetration in households.) These "middle-road" gamers are the type that might be "waiting for the price to come down" on PS3, seeing that there faith is still in that brand, but that gives the cheaper systems (both of them) a looong time to get some interesting games out there, while peoples PS2s start collecting dust. --------------------------------------------------------------- Not quite. The Xbox is a good example - no 500k units in Japan vs. 25m units in the USA and Europe. The same can be said for Sega Master System and Genesis. The Genesis held a fraction of the Japaneese market, but in the US and Europe, did considerably better than Nintendo for quite some time. --------------------------------------------------------------- Aren't those examples of systems which didn't catch on in Japan, and were never able to become the worldwide market leader? My examples were systems which did catch on in Japan, and then later moved into firm leads in every other market too. --------------------------------------------------------------- But to what extent will Nintendo games appeal? They have garnered a great number of casual hits and child-friendly games, but thats only a portion of the market. Nintendogs and such do very well, but so did Halo 2, GTA, Final Fantasy, Ghost Recon and other non-Nintendo games. --------------------------------------------------------------- Well Nintendogs has now outperformed all those titles except GTA, and is nipping at GTA3s heels. NSMB outperformed all those titles except GTA too, and the Sims is the second best selling (non-pack-in) game of all time. With all the expansion packs, the Sims franchise has actually slightly outsold the GTA franchise. That's right: the ultimate "casual" franchise on PC already outsells the supposedly all-important console franchise of last-gen. Hm. --------------------------------------------------------------- Again, as my first statement about where h/w will stand, no one region (except for Wii in Japan) will show utter and brutal dominance like what the PS2 did. The world isn't getting smaller, it's getting bigger. There are markets that are both untapped, and have radically different tastes in games. Japan has no PC gaming market, but in the US and Europe it's huge. Koreans have a gigantic MMO community, and are huge Lineage and World of Warcraft fans - most Japaneese gamers haven't even heard of those games. And likewise, the rest of the world doesn't get J-dating sims. --------------------------------------------------------------- There is little enough we're disagreeing on here that I deleted the responces I started writing... --------------------------------------------------------------- But being relevant in power compared to the other systems of the generation, and having a strong library do. We didn't see the N64 try to compete with the PS2. In 3 years, however, I feel like Nintendo will be doing just that against the PS3 and 360. Graphics aren't the be all end all, but they do have relevancy. If they did not, then how would Final Fantasy VII do so well, or Gears of War? Both were graphically defining games of their generations, and showed what next-gen could do, and sold well, despite them really not offering a huge boon to innovative and new gameplay. --------------------------------------------------------------- We did see the PS1 competing with the Gamecube, despite an even greater difference in power. It outsold it in 2002 in NA. Hmm. FF7 was important for its "cinematic" style, which became pervasive over the last 10 years. Gears of War won't be remembered nearly as well as Wii Sports. --------------------------------------------------------------- Very few marketing strategies and system properties work twice in a row. Sony picked a strategy that was diametrically opposed to Nintendos weak-but-innovative strategy, and 360s get-it-out-fast strategy. Even if I am right and the PS4 debuts in the wake of a PS3 that has only 60% of the PS2's marketshare, another power-hog won't work. It won't work for the PS3 either. Mind you, just because I think that the PS3 will out-sell the Wii and 360 does NOT mean it's the "winner". Going from 130m units sold to 70-75m units in just a few years is HORRIBLE. Sony is guarenteed to leave this generation a crying whimpering baby and a shadow of it's former self, just like Nintendo did exactly 10 years before when they launched the POS-64. --------------------------------------------------------------- Good business moves are universal, and ALWAYS work if they are followed through on. No console has ever been able to attract developers or consumers in the later years of its cycle due to being more powerful. The only time a more powerful console led in worldwide net marketshare was with the SNES leading the Genesis. But the "war" between those two consoles was full of mismanagement on both sides. The Genesis tried to push those attachments to make it more powerful than SNES, and SNES focused so much on first party, that third parties ran away in relief towards the PS1 as soon as they knew SNES would be phased out. Every other time in history when the philosophy behind a system was that power would garner sales or developer support, it has failed to win the market. --------------------------------------------------------------- I am sorry, I meant to say uber 3rd party title. 3rd parties are what make or break systems. Even though their effect will be less than it was in the 90s and early 2000s, it will still matter. The Wii still doesn't have a huge 3rd party signing exclusivity rights with Nintendo for the Wii. Yes, many more companies will come on board, but they won't hand over ther ultimate selling franchises. --------------------------------------------------------------- GAMES make or break systems. With far less third party support, and without the supposedly important DVD player, first party games propelled GC nearly as far as XBox. Why do you think, of all the companies to fall from first place in the console wars, Nintendo has had the slowest, most graceful decent? Right now, Nintendo needs third parties to fill in the gaps. They don't need them to hand over their "ultimate selling franchises." They went after the "ultimate selling franchises" with GC, and succeeded only in getting RE, and FF and MGS spin-offs. If third parties right now just fill the gaps, providing both the Maddens and Need for Speeds, and the Trauma Centers and Cooking Mamas, Wiis are going to keep selling. And third party games are going to keep selling as long as they provide them. --------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Name ONE 3rd party game on a Nintendo console that has done over 2m units in the past 10 years. That, my friend, is why I am severely sceptical of how the Wii will beat the 360 and PS3. Both systems have proven track records with 3rd parties. Nintendo is abhorrent with 3rd parties, expecially in the past 10 years. I am sure the Wii will have much better 3rd party support. However, I still dont see it reaching 360 and/or PS3 level(s). The Wii has the great first party support, but again, 3rd parties produce the bulk of games, regardless of which 1st party you enjoy. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pointing out a lack of third party hits on Nintendo consoles in recent years only demonstrates Nintendo's past mistakes in catering to third parties. For example, N64 was a more powerful system that was arrogantly using a media format which made game development more costly, and pushed game prices higher, simply for their own purposes. Nintendo were restrictive to third party developers, thinking that the power of their brand and their continued ownership of all the top AAA games would prevail. Uh... That would never happen again... A quick search shows 3 third party 2-million sellers on N64, and one on GC... Which happens to come from that dead franchise Sonic, btw. Third parties do produce the bulk of games, and the bulk of games they produce are not FFs or GTAs. Look at the giant list on this site of over 170 million selling PS2 titles. Then consider that all those million sellers account for well under half of all PS2 sales. Then consider that you have developers saying they have to sell 500,000 copies of a game on PS3 to break even. Where are all these little games going to go? To the system they can be most profitable on: one which has sold faster out of the gate and is cheaper to develop for... --------------------------------------------------------------- IF the Wii does over 50m, it will only be the 3rd Nintendo console to do that - and the SNES didn't massively over-do 50m. (PS1 or PS2 did both NES+SNES numbers) --------------------------------------------------------------- PS1 and PS2 accomplished those numbers mostly by fully tapping Europe... They were the first WW dominant consoles, but they didn't really expand the gamer base in existing markets... --------------------------------------------------------------- My statement was comparing major 3rd party titles on various systems. --------------------------------------------------------------- Its the draw of those games, and the condition of the platform they were released on which determined their sales, not simply the company who released the system. --------------------------------------------------------------- Again, compare the top 5, 3rd party titles on PS1 to N64 - huge difference. Top tier Nintendo games have ALWAYS been Nintendo games. Look at Final Fantasy - the highest selling FF on NES and SNES was 2.5m units. The first FF on another console did 8m+ units. Huge difference. As for Dragon Quest, it seems to have done well on any system, like you said, but it does do better on Playstation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Well FF was a franchise which benefitted from the jump to 3D. Other franchises, like Sonic, lost something in the jump, and others, like Dragon Quest, kept performing in the same way (the slow frequency of DQ titles explains the last two versions better performance.) You must think Nintendo games are a lot better and a lot more important than I do... and maybe think they have some sort of supernatural power if you think, all other things being equal, a given game will sell worse on a system with Nintendo games than on a system without them. So the secret to the console wars is to not be Nintendo? C'mon... Nintendo are looking for third parties to provide the "B" games instead of looking for the AAA games as they have in the past. They are stacking their 2007 lineup full of AAA games both for the existing GCN customer, and for the DS "casual" customer, to try and propel early sales as far as they can themselves. With greater potential profit per unit sold, a greater installed base, and Wiimote development kinks worked out, where do you think every smallish studio with smallish games is going to go?

"Either way, the Wii-mote might just be one of those Rumble Pack type things" No, Rumble was an innovation that improved that current market. Wiimote is one of many means to achieve new audience that hopefully ( for Nintendo ) will be bigger than Ps3/360 market. "Remember, the Wii still doesn't have 3rd party support." Why ? Sonic Wild fire, RE: Umbrella chronicles, Dragon quest sword, Red Steel 2, SSX Blur ...( publishers from 3 different continet ) But I think that Wii 3 party most successfull title in the future will be new IP ( or old IP with unique features ). When Ps1 was launched it didn't have the "Snes/Nes Uber-title" . New "uber title" were created for Ps1, Wii will do the same thing. "The biggest, most hyped Wii game that was 3rd party still has barely sold 400k units w/w (Red Steel) versus Zelda selling somewhere near 4x that....How can a dev support that wholeheartedly ...." Because Ubisoft spend about 10 milion $ to create Red Steel and with Red Steel USA sales of November-December they not only recovered developement cost but gain profit. Look at the Ubisoft financial report and see the support that Ubi is adding to Wii day in day out. Ubisoft is a smart and happy Wii third party. Resistence outsold Red Steel in USA but Resistence don't turn out a profit yet because Ps3's development cost is far superior to Wii's. "Some might be exclusives, however, with the controller scheme, it might also be cost-prohibitive to design on Wii if it's not guarenteed a very good return." Not too cost prohibitive like HD graphic .... "Actually, if you look at any chart from 95-96 and so on, the N64 had a huge lead. The N64 outsold the PS1 about 2:1 for the first year or two. When Resident Evil, FF7 and other games like those came out, thats when the PS1 really took off." N64 was launched in mid 1996 in USA and Japan. It outsold PS1 in USA only on early six months. Then PS1 outsold every years N64 in USA ( see charts of this site). In the rest of the world N64 do worse. "I agree that getting the non-gamers is critical, but the fact is, by getting them, you can easily be sacrificing other sections of gamers. The Wii will obviously pander to the fanboys, and they are trying to get the non-gamers, but what about the other 60 or 70m people that supported the PS2 due to the software library. " I ask you : How many Ps2 owner do you think really care about the expensive HD feature ? "Not quite. The Xbox is a good example - no 500k units in Japan vs. 25m units in the USA and Europe. The same can be said for Sega Master System and Genesis. The Genesis held a fraction of the Japaneese market, but in the US and Europe, did considerably better than Nintendo for quite some time." Really silly: Xbox sold slighty better than Gamecube with the huge difference that Microsoft took 4 Billion $ loss whereas Nintendo make profit. Master System was an irrilevant system in late '80 ( Nes had about 92% marketshare in USA and Japan, Europe was an irrilevant market at that time for console becuase it was dominated by home-computer like Amiga and Atari ST) Genesis was the only "market leader" surpassed by another company ( Nintendo ) after an incredible catching up. Nintendo can did it thanks to japanese s/h support and other motives ( Genesis was the beginning of the end for Sega for many reasons ...). "But to what extent will Nintendo games appeal? They have garnered a great number of casual hits and child-friendly games, but thats only a portion of the market. Nintendogs and such do very well, but so did Halo 2, GTA, Final Fantasy, Ghost Recon and other non-Nintendo games." Yeah what you call childish/casual part is only one portion but it is the biggest portion. Hardcore gamers are very important in the beginning because launch console's price is expensive ( this is the reason Wii price is so low - it's a different business strategy) but in final userbase hardcore gamers are only a small portion ( it's time to understand it ). Nintendogs sold about 10 milions units worldwide but the real affair is that Nintendogs's development cost is ridicolus if compare to GTA's, Halo's,Final Fantasy's,Ghost Recon's or even most N64 games. This is why many publishers admire Nintendogs. Nowadays DS is THE casual console but in its lineup there are still Hardcore games such as Castlevani PoR : Nintendo DS is a console for EVERYONE. There are millions of harcore gamers all over around that are waiting Metroid Prime: Corruption or No More Heroes. "We didn't see the N64 try to compete with the PS2." No. We saw Nes with its 8bit graphic crush the expensive Amiga with its 16 bit graphic ( Ps3 is like PC, do you remeber Kutaragi ?) Wii is similar to Nes, not N64 , Snes or GC. "Graphics aren't the be all end all, but they do have relevancy. If they did not, then how would Final Fantasy VII do so well, or Gears of War?" Nintendogs outsold FF7 and GoW despite its ridicolous development cost . It's a paradigm shift. "Name ONE 3rd party game on a Nintendo console that has done over 2m units in the past 10 years." Why ? Wii is radical different by N64,GC and Snes ( PS: Try to find Lucasart's Shadow of Empire worldwide sales (N64) ). "Top tier Nintendo games have ALWAYS been Nintendo games. Look at Final Fantasy - the highest selling FF on NES and SNES was 2.5m units. The first FF on another console did 8m+ units. Huge difference. As for Dragon Quest, it seems to have done well on any system, like you said, but it does do better on Playstation." Nintendo is the largest publisher in the world. It is stupid compare software sales from Nes/Snes era and those from Ps1/Ps2 era because each era had enlarge that software sales. Also games like FF had a great advantage in PS1/PS2 era because they ride the cinematic-style trend-up ( this is why FF13 is a Ps3's exclusive). Now that trend is down. Enix developed only 2 DQ original title for Ps1/Ps2 whereas 6 title for Nes/Snes thanks to lower development cost and time. Enix earns a lot more yen from DQ in Nes/Snes era therefore DQ is now leading on Nintendo platforms.