The Summer 2007 Video Game Console Wars

[sinha]

Sorry for the late response, I lost track of this thread.

 

Sullla said:

Let's see if we can clarify the picture a bit further. With IGN leaving so many games off of its list, the numbers are simply not accurate. Plus, the list is further flawed because some games are getting listed TWICE for PS3/360 (like Virtua Fighter 5 - it's not coming out again on PS3 this summer!) And you also listed games like Brothers In Arms as summer titles for PS3/360, even though there are no such games coming out - only PS2/Xbox versions from last gen (huh?) Here's how it should look:

Wii: 28 total games (8 unique listed by IGN, 9 multiplatform, 11 unique not listed by IGN)

PS3: 31 total games (5 unique listed by IGN, 25 multiplatform, 1 unique not listed by IGN)

360: 38 total games (8 unique listed by IGN, 23 multiplatform 7 unique not listed by IGN)

 

Correct, there is no new Virtua Fighter 5 game available for the PS3, no new Ninja Gaiden for the 360, and no new Brothers in Arms for the PS3/360, I was counting these twice NOT to get an accurate number of new summer games available for each console, but to water down the value of games that are new to one console but already available on another console. They may not be new this summer, but PS3 owners can still buy Virtua Fighter 5, 360 owners can buy Ninja Gaiden Black, and both can play the original PS2/Xbox versions of Brothers in Arms.

 

Now that's still a blatantly unfair comparison, because it lists downloadable games from the PSN store without counting Virtual Console/Live Arcade offerings, but there you have it. There are definitely more multiplatform games for PS3 and 360, but the Wii has a clear edge in the number of exclusive titles upcoming. It's even more of a disparity if you recognize the somewhat embarassing fact that 2 of the 5 PS3 "exclusives" are PSN downloadable games (Warhawk + Super Stardust HD). Whoops. Either you need to include XBox Live Arcade/Virtual Console games into the comparison, or take out the PSN ones. Can't have it both ways.

Agreed, I didn't know Warhawk and Super Stardust HD were downloadable games. However, perhaps these games are considered "bigger" than the games that are coming out on the VC and XBLA over the summer period? Regarding the new Wii games that were not mentioned in the IGN article, you said "Granted, those Wii games look pretty crummy", perhaps this is a similar situation? I don't know, I'm just going by what is in the IGN article.

 

sinha said: Most of these other games [not listed by IGN] will probably get mediocre to bad ratings and not sell many units. Some of the Wii titles (High School Musical? My Word Coach?) seem particularly uninteresting.

I agree, most of those games are not going to do much. But it's dangerous to dismiss casual titles out of hand; hardcore gamers laughed at the Sims ("it's an electronic dollhouse!") and it went on to become the best-selling PC game of all time. The original Playstation largely beat out the N64 on the basis of having 10 crummy games for every game put out by Nintendo, drowning the system in sheer number of titles. I would not write off a game like MySims until we see how the (very large) casual market responds.

 

Agreed, I just assumed IGN would have some idea which games will be big, as that is essentially the point of the articles. We'll see if that's true or not.

ckmlb said: I bet you Project Sylpheed will be a decent game and will sell decent.

Again, I'm just going by the IGN article, it's not my list, but Project Sylpheed has a Metascore of 67 and has sold 11,500 copies in the US in 2 weeks. But even if it was a decent game and sold well, such quibbling over individual games (Sylpheed, Warhawk, Brothers in Arms) misses the overall point of the thread.

 

sinha said: The Wii doesn't have anything big scheduled to come out in early fall, whereas the 360 and PS3 both have Half-Life and Grand Theft Auto. The 360 also has its biggest selling game, Halo, coming out in this period.

Based on these games, one would expect the 360 to do the best in the next few months in terms of both game and console sales, followed by the PS3, and with the Wii trailing behind the other two.

I know you're new here, but if you actually think that sales will go 360/PS3/Wii in the new few months, you're crazy. The best-case scenario for the 360 and PS3 is that their high-profile releases will raise their systems up to the level of Wii sales. You may not be aware of this, but the Wii has been outselling 360 and PS3 combined pretty much every month this year - and I'm talking about America, not Japan (where it's just ugly). And while Grand Theft Auto and Halo will be major sellers, a port of Half-Life appears unlikely to be one. A new version for the PC, yes, a port for the console market, no.

The Wii doesn't have anything big scheduled for the early fall? Hmm... not going to touch that one. I'll let one of the raging Nintendo fanboys on this website try to respond to that instead.

 

I didn't say the 360 and PS3 would out-sell the Wii, I said based just on the number of big games being released, one would expect that. Obviously in reality games are NOT the only thing that determine console sales, or even the most important thing. Perhaps I wasn't very clear on this. Personally, I expect US console sales this holiday season to be Wii 360 PS3, like most other people.

Also note that some big Nintendo games coming out this year didn't have concrete release dates when I wrote the original post, but they do now.

 

sinha said: In the past six weeks, the 360 has sold 8.3 new games for every new console sold, the PS3 has sold 5.5 new games for every new console sold, and the Wii has sold only 3.2 new games for every new console sold.

sinha said: Wii games are less than half as likely to be rated 75-100 as PS3 and 360 games. Given all the buzz surrounding the Wii and all the praise from both the gaming and mainsteam media, this is rather shocking. And the PS3 doesn't have many games, but they are of surprisingly high quality for a console that was proclaimed a "bust" in mid-December 2006.

While it's obvious by now that you're trying to discredit the Wii for some reason, I still feel compelled to type something here. One of the running discussion topics on this board has been whether or not traditional review sites are able to review Wii games fairly; there have been some indications that review sites simply dismiss casual titles with low scores, which then go on to be very successful sellers. I don't fully buy into that logic, but I do believe there's a kernel of truth there.

The larger issue is that taking all the average scores, for all the titles out on a console, and then putting them together to make some kind of a comparion is a totally meaningless gesture. It proves nothing. Mere playing around with numbers. If the Wii gets a crummy port of, say, "Happy Feet" (the animated movie with penguins) and it gets a score of 5/10, does that mean that the Wii is a "bad" console? Would it have been better off having that game never appear at all? Of course not. Such logic is silly. The PS2 had reams and reams of absolutely dreadful games - so what? It also had lots of really good ones too.

Consumers buy consoles and games that they want to play. Right now, a lot of them want to play games that are exclusive to Nintendo. Wii Sports was largely panned by review sites, but it consistently gets great user reviews - and has probably moved 2-3 million Wii consoles by itself (and possibly more than that). In the long run, review scores are pretty meaningless compared to the workings of the free market.

I appreciate the statistics, sinha; perhaps you could explain why you seem to be unhappy with the Wii's success? I know you said you weren't trying to bash any particular console, but the tone of your post argued otherwise.

 

First of all, I'm not at all unhappy with the Wii's success, I'm just saying that I'm a bit puzzled by it based only on the games available for each system. But obviously I recognize the Wii not only does have some good games, but more importantly, obviously the Wii also has other things going for it (low price, small size of console, innovative controller, dedicated fan base, etc.) that may be a bigger factor in console sales. And I DID mention these positive attributes of the Wii in my original post, but only in passing because the subject matter of the post is the quality/quantity of games available for each console.

Regarding the rest, my point was that the media has showered the Wii with praise and bashed the PS3 (and it may be deserved in both cases), yet PS3 games get better critical reviews than Wii games. I see little reason why there would be a bias against Wii games. Perhaps it's possible that members of this site tend to be biased in favor of Nintendo games? In the vgchartz game rankings, Nintendo games take up 32 of the top 33 spots (Final Fantasy VII for the PS is the only non-Nintendo game, at #29 with an 8.08 rating, the only non-Nintendo game with a score of 8 / 10 or above). The next 13 spots (from 34 to 46) include 10 more Nintendo games, so 42 of the top 46 games on vgchartz are from Nintendo, compared to 2 from Sony and 0 from Microsoft.

As to your point about sales totals being more important than media ratings, I guess that depends on what one values. For people interested in game sales, perhaps sales totals are more relevant, and for video game aficionados, perhaps critical acclaim is more relevant. Personally, although I'm a big believer in the free market, I don't think the market has much relevance when it comes to determining what is good art. A CD of even the worst songs by Britney Spears would probably outsell a long-lost Ramones album signed by every band member, living and dead. There is no overlap between the top movies at the box office and the top movies in the BFI Sight & Sound poll. The latest Harry Potter movie has a Metascore of 71, but would probably move millions of Bluray players if released only on that format. Of course this is a sales site, but it's also a site for gaming enthusiasts.