This goes both ways, guys.

Anyone who claims a victory for the Blue Ocean strategy, or that the Wii is reaching out to new gamers, cannot simultaneously claim that the Wii is competing in the same market as the PS360. The whole point of the Blue Ocean strategy is to reach into different markets. 

In reality, it's somewhere in between. The Wii has moved into new markets, but clearly has roots in the old one. That's why it makes sense to compare the machines, and also why it still makes sense for many third parties to release their traditional, "epic", AAA games on the PS360, because that platform's install base is nearly undiluted by anything that doesn't rabidly love the types of traditional RPG/Shooter games that enthusiast gamers love. 

I think there is denial on both sides of the issue. They are competing in the fact that they are taking entertainment dollars. But, we could bring in the PC as well, which people seem to accept as a different market. But the truth is that HD consoles are owning the PC market.

With the Wii and HD consoles, you can't deny the fact that third parties are segmenting the market differently than last generation. Even though the Wii is kicking ass and taking names in terms of sales, HD consoles are also increasing in sales as well. With the strong competition between Sony and MS, games like DMC and GTA are increasing total sales over the previous generation. It's a fanboy's dream if you think companies are going to completely throw away HD game development in the dumpster.

Third party support for the Wii will get stronger, but it may be different kinds of titles, with some exceptions.

Bodhesatva said: This goes both ways, guys. Anyone who claims a victory for the Blue Ocean strategy, or that the Wii is reaching out to new gamers, cannot simultaneously claim that the Wii is competing in the same market as the PS360. The whole point of the Blue Ocean strategy is to reach into different markets. In reality, it's somewhere in between. The Wii has moved into new markets, but clearly has roots in the old one. That's why it makes sense to compare the machines, and also why it still makes sense for many third parties to release their hardcore, AAA games on the PS360, because that platform's install base is nearly undiluted by anything that doesn't rabidly love the types of traditional RPG/Shooter games that hardcore gamers love.

I'll agree to this. The Wii is trying to compete for some of the core gamers that the 360/PS3 are also targeting, but the majority of the Wii's user base are new gamers or "casual" gamers. There is so much untapped potential in the non-gamer market as Nintendo is proving week by week with its amazing sales numbers. In fact, even at my work, this 56 year old lady came up to me and asked me about the Wii and said she wanted one because of Wii sports. I then told her I had a PS3/360 and Wii and I liked my PS3 the best and she couldn't understand why and she then told me her neighbor, who is also a non-gamer, has one. Also, almost every one of my gamer friends who owns a Wii also owns a PS3 or 360. So the Wii is also seen as a complimentary system. It was a smart strategy by Nintendo to target these markets, and they are reaping the rewards. What gets me frustrated is when people try to tell me that its a gamers machine and offers a similar experience to 360/PS3. This just isn't true imo. So far, the only 2 games I've enjoyed at all on the Wii are Mario Galaxy and Brawl. And these are sequels, in which most of the other games in the series were awesome as well. I have yet to see a good exclusive, original Wii game that offers me the experience I've had on my PS3. In this regard, the Wii is not in the same league as 360 or the PS3, as they offer the superior gaming experience. I firmly believe that even with the amazing success of the Wii, that 3rd parties will still choose the PS3 and 360 as the platform of choice for huge, epic games likes Final Fantasy 13. At the end of the day, the Wii will destroy all in sales, but the HD consoles will still have the best games.

Until we start seeing ports of leading edge multi platform games on the Wii, the consoles are not in the same class. The fact that we haven't seen any high profile HD games announced for the Wii does not refute this.

Why no DMCIV port from Capcom, one of the biggest supporters of the Wii platform? We still have people hoping and petitioning for RE5, but still no announcements from Capcom. No Assassin's Creed, no GTAIV, no CoD4, Oblivion, UTIII, the list goes on forever of games that will appear on both the PS3 and 360, but not the Wii. Is it because there's no market for these games on the Wii? Or is it because restrictions of the hardware would simply require too much downscaling by developers to produce a port that is not the same experience as the original?

Now if you find yourself in the position where none of the big multi-platform games are something you're interested in playing, then you are clearly in the Nintendo demographic.

Third party support should continue to improve on the Wii. With any luck, it won't be on the basis of volume, but quality. In a best case scenario, we will see more third party exclusives on the platform that cater to the Nintendo demographic while making full use of the platform's hardware, namely the control scheme. Will they be the most impressive games in the industry? No, but it's not important so long as the games are engaging and ultimately FUN to play.

As it stands, the best games for the Wii for the vast majority of Wii owners are by Nintendo. Games that we will never see on the PS3 or 360. Games that are the best, if not the only reason to own a Wii. Anyone interested in playing them isn't going to make absurd comparisons between Mario and GTA or Mario Kart and Gran Turismo as to why they don't need a Wii, they'll just buy one anyway to supplement their gaming wants.

If all we're looking at in terms of market relevance is straight sales figures, then an automotive analogy would be to say that Ford and GM are both beating automakers such as BMW and Mercedes in a direct comparison. Of course, most recognize they cater to different consumers with different earning and spending habits, as well as what they expect to receive for that premium.

But Ford and GM both sell significantly more cars that either BMW or Benz, so that still puts them on top in the overall automotive market, right? Ultimately, you get what you pay for. And for the majority of auto buyers, a Ford or a GM does everything the owner needs, at a price most anyone can afford. But having a car that sells more does not make it better or even equal.

Sales aren't the final word. Equal sales don't mean competing on even ground. Greater sales don't mean competing on a higher level. And high sales numbers don't magically make the hardware anything greater than what it was originally engineered to be.

So long as any hardware platform remains profitable, whether due to reduction in manufacturing costs or due to soft licensing fees, and continues to see growth over the previous year, that's all that matters to the companies producing them. Anything beyond that is boasting rights, which Nintendo has certainly earned after a long absence from the top spot.

Ugh, I can't believe anyone thinks that breaking even is the goal of manufacturers.

I'll put this simply. GreenMedic, if you think that it would be okay for a manufacturer to simply break even -- and that anything beyond that is simply "bragging rights" -- you're wrong, and clearly do not understand how industry works, particularly in growing fields. Unless the situation is extraordinary, shareholders will call for the heads of the executives rather quickly under those conditions.

Shareholders expect growth, and you do not grow without profits. To what extent they expect growth is dependant on the place, time, and economic circumstances, but that's always the expectation.

No reasonable person thinks GM is "beating" BMW right now. BMW is still a profitable enterprise, GM is hemmorhaging cash. And yes, they absolutely are compared by economic analysts, because economic analysts consider them to be in the same market. In other words, the example you've just given -- another car analogy -- does nothing but disprove you, since the companies you've mentioned are, in fact, frequently compared.

Xiru said:   I'll agree to this. The Wii is trying to compete for some of the core gamers that the 360/PS3 are also targeting, but the majority of the Wii's user base are new gamers or "casual" gamers. There is so much untapped potential in the non-gamer market as Nintendo is proving week by week with its amazing sales numbers. In fact, even at my work, this 56 year old lady came up to me and asked me about the Wii and said she wanted one because of Wii sports. I then told her I had a PS3/360 and Wii and I liked my PS3 the best and she couldn't understand why and she then told me her neighbor, who is also a non-gamer, has one. Also, almost every one of my gamer friends who owns a Wii also owns a PS3 or 360. So the Wii is also seen as a complimentary system. It was a smart strategy by Nintendo to target these markets, and they are reaping the rewards. What gets me frustrated is when people try to tell me that its a gamers machine and offers a similar experience to 360/PS3. This just isn't true imo. So far, the only 2 games I've enjoyed at all on the Wii are Mario Galaxy and Brawl. And these are sequels, in which most of the other games in the series were awesome as well. I have yet to see a good exclusive, original Wii game that offers me the experience I've had on my PS3. In this regard, the Wii is not in the same league as 360 or the PS3, as they offer the superior gaming experience. I firmly believe that even with the amazing success of the Wii, that 3rd parties will still choose the PS3 and 360 as the platform of choice for huge, epic games likes Final Fantasy 13. At the end of the day, the Wii will destroy all in sales, but the HD consoles will still have the best games.

 To me it's just the other way round. Playing RE4:Wii was such a great improvement over piss poor analog stick targeting, it felt like a whole new game. And Galaxy was like a revelation, as I felt that Nintendo still has the magic to deliver completely new gaming experiences. I don't miss last gen controls.

there's comments on here that there's plenty of wii owners that will only own one console and you always hear ps3 / 360 owners saying they'll never purchase a wii so when you clearly have people that buy a console to play games and will only ever purchase one how can people possibly buy into their not competing?

Sony's Little Big Planet, singstar, Buzz and MS's Viva Pinata and their core 360 being labelled "arcade pack" and rumoured wii type X remote as well as nintendo's disaster day of crisis, wiiware and so much attention to their online components recently indicates that they are all competing with all demographics so if it's okay to compete then i'll always think it's okay to comapre.

Bodhesatva said: Ugh, I can't believe anyone thinks that breaking even is the goal of manufacturers. I'll put this simply. GreenMedic, if you think that it would be okay for a manufacturer to simply break even -- and that anything beyond that is simply "bragging rights" -- you're wrong, and clearly do not understand how industry works, particularly in growing fields. Unless the situation is extraordinary, shareholders will call for the heads of the executives rather quickly under those conditions. Shareholders expect growth, and you do not grow without profits. To what extent they expect growth is dependant on the place, time, and economic circumstances, but that's always the expectation. No reasonable person thinks GM is "beating" BMW right now. BMW is still a profitable enterprise, GM is hemmorhaging cash. And yes, they absolutely are compared by economic analysts, because economic analysts consider them to be in the same market. In other words, the example you've just given -- another car analogy -- does nothing but disprove you, since the companies you've mentioned are, in fact, frequently compared.

Read closer. Who said anything about "breaking even?" Being profitable is the ultimate goal unless you're just a niche hobbiest company that simply wants to stay in business to produce more games or product. Demonstrating growth, year over year is as you say it, "how the industry works, particularly in growing fields."

As for those shareholders you're referring to, you're referring to me; I'm a Nintendo shareholder, specifically because they've displayed the best fundamentals and the most growth as a company for AV consumer equipment since the Wii was released. 

"So long as any hardware platform remains profitable, whether due to reduction in manufacturing costs or due to soft licensing fees, and continues to see growth over the previous year, that's all that matters to the companies producing them."

If you don't agree with the conclusion, that's fine. But read the previous statement.  

The car analogy was simply to demonstrate that sales volumes of competing products (equal or greater) is not synonymous with competing in the same demographic. People that are shopping for a Benz are not comparing them with Ford products for the purpose of finding the better car for their purposes. If that disproves me, then tell that to the people who drive a Benz or a BMW. Tell them that a Ford would have been a comparable car for less money as two different makes that are frequently compared which must mean they are comparable and competing products.

The OP had nothing to do with competing financials, which is what you are in fact referring to. The topic was about comparing the company's products. Two different things. I buy Nintendo stock, but I buy more PS3 games. Apples and oranges.  

They are clearly competing, not to as great a degree as PS3 and 360, but to a certain extent.

I know for me that owning a Wii has stopped me from being able to enjoy 360 or PS3 FPS's

I believe we've already heard the final word on the status of the Wii: It IS competing in the same league as the PS3 and XBox 360.  Take a look at the link below:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/30356/Core-gamer-market-is-saturated

The source doesn't separate out the handheld and console markets, but considering Nintendo's equally strong performance on both fronts, I think the end conclusion holds.  The relevant passage is this: “The claims are backed up by IDG figures which reveal that the last few years of industry expansion have been driven almost exclusively by Nintendo formats. Without Wii and DS hardware and software sales, the overall international market actually declined by seven per cent last year”.  Given the ever-increasing cost of developing HD games (see: $100 million for GTA IV), a sizable reduction in market size such as this would come as a double whammy for most developers of "core" games, meaning the industry may actually be at the brink of disaster right now.  Basically, if you accept that the Wii is not in the same league as the PS3 and XBox 360, then you must also discount their share of the pie.  If you discount their share of the pie, suddenly the whole pie has gotten smaller, and the developers much hungrier.  In other words, it would mean the "core" gaming market is actually shrinking, and courting a second industry crash.