@Mrstickball
I see your points, but I see your post are a "gamers" perspective. The perspective of one playing the games. I am looking at it in a analytical way. What I speak of is business, something the industry forgets.
Thing is, many view it because of how limited the Wii is in terms of hardware...When the Wii gets inferior ports of nearly every single title, analysts wonder if Nintendo will upgrade the Wii to at least get decent ports for competitive reasons.
Good point. I think the problem is a pit of a path. The publishers/developers make "casual" games and other games to cash in on the Wii. They fail. The indusrty see it's a problem with the Wii hardwares and "predicts" a better one will come. The industry never took Nintendo seriously.
So you, as a gamer, take high amounts of comfort in who brings in the most profits? For Microsoft losing a lot of cash, I'm a relatively happy gamer as a X360 owner - I've got tons of fun games (the 'Big titles' as you call them). In business terms, yes, the profit is all that matters. But as a gamer, the content matters far more - which is why people love talking about awesome game X selling well, and shovelware game Y doing poorly.
No, I say all of this as an analysis (not to say I'm a professional). I point blame at the industry becuase instead of looking at this with a business lens, they see console wars. This has been a big fault of the industry.
Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 owners connect their systems to the internet 60% of the time. 35% of all Xbox 360 owners have downloaded at least 1 title via Live. Those are pretty important numbers, no? Maybe in your world, the majority does not matter, but in real life it does.
35% is not the majority. That means there are 8.47 buyers of DLC. Microsoft is doing their business wrong. They are not focuses on growth but stagnation. With only 8.47 buyers of DLC, it should not be a consern. The focus should be getting more of those 60% of people buying DLC, or getting the other 40% online. But instead of doing this, Microsoft skipped a step and marketed to the people who aleady consumers rather then get the rest of their user base buying up DLC. So, with this in mind, why does Microsoft and Sony spend SO much money on DLC when there is only 35% of thise user base is buiying it. Couldn;t the money be spent on better things.
Also, keep in mind that the 360 and PS3 are both systems selling to higher tier gamers, ones who will get their consoles online. I doubt very many of the 120million PS2 owners got online. But, if you can find numbers to disprove me..
And some gamers do play games for high scores. If that wasn't the case, why do some gamerscore junkies have 20x and 30x the number of points above the average? Ever looked at a high score list before...On ANY game in history that has 'em? What about watching 'The King of Kong: Fistfull of Quarters' - High scores exist as an athletic achievement in the same way sports statistics do. It allows us to visually see how good, or how much we improve on a game.
No, people KEEP playing for highscores. People play for fun games.
Maybe because the race for second is the only relevant one. The Wii has one. At this point, it's like talking about Playstation 2 dominance years ago. And who are 'they'? Business leaders always talk sales - and I don't think a lot love to talk about Game Party being a million seller, because they may be embarrassed that such an odd title sold that well.
I don't know about you, but the PS2 was still a focus in the industry's mind.
Now look at what I underlined. Why wont a business leader talk about a game that sold well. Oh, becuase it's a "non-game". As a business, you SHOULD be talking about game sales, no matter how odd. Why? Becuase you can make money by studying an odd game that sells well. Guess what? If an "odd" game sold well, it did something right. This is just another fault of the industry.
Also, being involved in the XBLA download sales scene - I can tell you that a ton of business leaders care about that segment. I've talked to dozens of developers about my weekly charts.
This may seem like a low blow, but, with what was mentioned earlier, these business leaders may have some bias. If they refuse to talk about "odd" games then they may not be doing their job correctly.
We can also say that a business leader looka at all points of the industry. Looking at anything can give you an insight of how to do other things, or how something can be done better. It's just good analysis.
Ever thought that DLC may be a way to make a fun game....Funner? Or longer? I loved Oblivion. That's why I bought Shivering Isles. Rather than risk buying another game which may be inferior, I payed $30 to expand my Oblivion experience by dozens of hours. If offered the option - Wouldn't you enjoy playing a few extra levels of Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess? I know I would.
My point was that the industry has lost focus. Can DLC make a game better. Yes.
But something interesting you pointed out. If SMG and TP had DLC, then wouldn't it be better. Why does Nintendo not do this? It is the same reason Nintendo is behind every generation. Take online for instance. The "gamer" likes online. So why not do it. The truth is many people didn't get their systems online. DLC is the same thing. Only 35% are getting DLC. Remember this is a console with lower sales and higher tier games. Additionally, the lower selling console have higher attach(is that the word?) rates. So, naturally, it would not be surprising to see a higher % of people online or consuming DLC.
So perhaps there is a reason Nintendo does not follow suit.
