Nintendo's gonna have 3 million units per month for three months? One month maybe (globally). The people calling for this insane production boost must know something Nintendo's not revealing to the rest of us.
Why do they need to produce 3 millions a month for three months? If you mean HappySquirels nummer, all he pointed out was that all systems get a boost during the holidays, and that more or less 50% of the sales comes from that time.
Some projects can be cancelled, but it would be silly to pull the plug on anything that's already cost 8 figures. Makes much more sense to port it to 360 or better yet go to Sony and beg for money.
I don't think that I never have stated that that they will pull the plug on projects that is going, I do think that PS3 wont get so many new project as the PS2
PS2 had 414 third party games at the end of 2002, but it's not really a fair comparison because it had been out for an extra year. Better would be Microsoft with 176.
Nintendo's previous system had a 12% market share. It'll take more than just being better than that.
Yes it does, thats why it is so intressting to see that the 12% market share company is selling close to PS2 levels. So far nothing indicates that a slow down will occur. I mean Wii is selling without any games at all.
PS1 did not have the PlayStation brand or the 12 years of building developer relations that goes along with it. Also, back then, Sony was not a strong publisher, and its internal efforts had been jokes consisting primarily of its own crappy licenses. Sony's not the new kid on the block any more. They know the industry, and the industry knows them. I do think they're too arrogant for their own good, but that doesn't negate the good things that they have going. Let's see Nintendo try to sell a $600 system and see how far they get.
Yes Nintendo might not succed selling a 600 USD system, BUT thats why Wii is 250 USD. It wasn't Nintendo that called Sony and said, price you consol at 600 USD thats an order. It was Sonys choice and now they have to live with it. The PS1 was a new kid on the block, but because it had its headstart and that Nintendo got arrogant, Nintendo lost the 3rd parties. PS1 got the 3rd party support that Nintendo pissed on.
What is the good thing Sony has going with their 600 USD consol?
You can only get so far on the basis of one company. We saw that with N64 and Gamecube. At least on N64 they had Rare, but now they don't even have that. Third parties are needed to win. They need to start embracing them and stop doing everything based on their own needs. That's what got them in trouble in the first place.
I think you totally has missed that DS already broaden the market with Brain Age and so on. If Wii Sport/health/play/music/motorsport and mario/zelda/metroid can drive sales untill they got 30 millions way before PS3. Nintendo will get they 3rd party support they need.
I want to see a company willing to spend. That to me says they're serious. Aggressive marketing, losses on hardware, shopping for exclusives, online gaming, whatever it takes. It can be argued this isn't the smartest move, and perhaps Nintendo's too small to do it, so cutting corners was probably their best strategy.
Their best strategy? You do understand that they didn't need aggresive marketing and losses on hardware to get one of the fastest launch since PS2?
We saw Microsoft reduce about 25% months ago, and they're just above the 10 million mark. Sony's halfway to that point and has a lot more room to reduce.
Well if you think Sony just can make a price drop the moment they go under 600 USD in production cost, I can tell you that they need to regain the money they have lost during launch. The consol is sold with almost 200 USD in loss!
The difference between N64 and now is that N64 lost all its exclusives before it even had a chance to get them.
Yes and it still rusched out from the stores, on brand alone. PS3 isn't selling on brand alone and one year from now when the exclusives that is announced comes, Nintendo will probarbly have a lead that is close to 10 millions. Which means that the new games announced, now, will either go multiplattform with xbox360 or be on Wii.
Microsoft may not have wanted shorter lifecycles perse, but their goal of launching earlier than the competition resulted in it.
PS3 already has third party support. It doesn't need to get it. Obviously, going forward, we are talking about something different, but there are enough major projects already in the works that developers will be looking at sales of those to determine where to go next.
Yes again PS3 has 3rd party support for now, that doesn't help if no new exclusivs is coming. PS3 isn't alone in the market, it can't play wait and see. So far Sony is living on its first party titles, resistance and motorstorm. Which isn't going that well. The difference between Nintendo and Sony is this: Nintendo decided to go for broaden the market meanwhile Sony is fighting to get to the old market, it seems that Nintendo is doing the right thing.
Sony doesn't even have any first party games out yet. They never feel the need to launch with a killer app. If they did, we'd have seen God of War II on PS3, where it probably should have been.
False, the two must hyped games is first party, Resistnace and Motorstorm.
Bingo. Once Nintendo's quick start disappeared combined with lackluster third party sales, support dried up.
First 3rd party sales for Wii is much better than PS3 WW, PS3 is living on its first party titles. Wii have tons of quick ports selling more than exclusivs on PS3 at least in USA. 3rd party sales on Wii isn't bad at all looking at what they get. A tie ratio of 3rd party games in USA on 1.588 isn't bad at all, again looking at which crap they got for launch. The good games isn't coming until later this year, with MySims, Boogie and so on. Games that we might think is really bad, but that is targetting the female market, a market that neither Sony or Microsoft is even playing at.
And what evidence have we that Wii launch sales just will die away? PS2 has never stopped selling.
The exclusives are meaningless, though. Well, maybe not quite meaningless, but largely pretty close to it. Mario, Pokemon, SSB, etc. are all excellent exclusives to have, but as far as third parties, the list ranges from "Who cares?" to "Okay, maybe even pretty good," with an emphasis on "Who cares?" Their biggest exclusives are spinoffs that we already know won't sell as well as the main franchises (we saw this with both FF and RE already) that are going to be on other systems.
Yes because everybody thought that the PS3 would win easily, I think you are missing the point here: Nintendo is winning NOW, that means more support after this point. Do you think that SE will give next FF (after that one which is announced) if sales is at GameCube levels for PS3 and Wii has PS2 levels? I mean DS got dragon Quest.
Second no exclusivs isn't meaningless, it is what sales a consol. One exclusive that you seem to ignore is still Wii Sport, which is the start of a serie that seems to become Wii:s Nintendodogs (WW sales 12,09 million), Brain Training (7.33 Million WW), and so on. Nintendo is broading the market today, forgett about the old series, as EA showed with Sims their is other games than male 14-22 year old.
Making a profit over the long term at the expense of short term losses is how the industry works. Nintendo can have a profit annually (primarily from its portable sales but whatever), but the others are willing to be more aggressive.
Yes they are more aggressive, and they are lossing money fast, Microsofts xbox division has never showed profit, PS3 is lossing money and has so far not shown any momentum at all. Sony thought that their brand would do everything and they have failed so far.
Note: Nintendo DS vs Sony PSP history seems to totally fail to teach us anything, that player that goes for broading the market will win. Simply as that, because today we have elder folks, femals and so on that isn't playing at all, and Brain Training/Nintendodogs has showed what can happend if you do it right!
Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!
