First, he said Pokemon was a fad, and "was a 1997 thing, [and] it's dead now." A dead fad that has sold twice as much as Halo 3... uh huh. First conclusion: Halo is a fad.
Second: "Bottom line - no matter what some ace writer or “market analyst” says we hardcore gamers (translation: real gamers) are the pulse and purse of the industry. We were there after the crash, we’ll be there after the soccer moms put the Wii’s in the attic. Let’s hope the game publishing industry continues to realize this or we could be in trouble… That’s one of my predictions."
I really don't think that is true. Yes, hardcore gamers play a lot of games and buy a lot of games. Even if you take those top games for the PS2 that everyone always talks about (FF games, MGS games, GT, GTA, etc) and all up their total sales (for the most recent version), it doesn't even come close to the total userbase of the PS2. Yes, hardcore gamers buy a lot of games, but there aren't enough of them to overcome the massive amounts of casuals, who still buy games. The PS2 sold 120 million units, and probably a good 75% would probably considered casuals. And they probably bought more games than the hardcore players did. Simply because of numbers. It's important to remember that when you have a large userbase, games have the potential to sell a lot better. I mean, with 120 million users, a lot of people are bound to pick up lots of different games. And honestly, casuals buy the FF/GTAs/etc too, they just don't play them as much and probably don't play them for hours on end. That's why they sell so well too, and is the reason the PS2 won, it hit those casuals, and is why the Wii will probably come out on top, because it has tapped into the PS2 casuals, and possibly (most likely) a lot more casuals.
Second and a half: Without casuals, the market probably would crash because not enough people would buy the "true next gen consoles" as he puts it to make it worthwhile, especially for smaller companies, who would then continue developing for the PS2... which means we would get stuck in the last generation. I can't see how that is better. To prove this point:
| First Year Totals1 | ||||||
| GameCube | PlayStation 2 | Xbox | Dreamcast2 | Total | % Change from Previous | |
| Japan | 1.58 | 3.94 | 0.37 | 1.29 | 7.18 | - |
| America | 2.68 | 4.87 | 3.62 | 2.11 | 13.28 | - |
| Other | 1.68 | 4.46 | 2.14 | 1.01 | 9.29 | - |
| Total: | 5.94 | 13.27 | 6.13 | 4.41 | 29.75 | - |
| Wii | PlayStation 3 | Xbox360 | Total | |||
| Japn | 3.88 | 1.27 | 0.19 | 5.34 | -25.63% | |
| America | 6.29 | 2.34 | 3.48 | 12.11 | -8.81% | |
| Other | 4.68 | 3.41 | 2.09 | 10.18 | 9.58% | |
| Total: | 14.85 | 7.02 | 5.76 | 27.63 | -7.13% |
| 1 First full year in each region, using VGChartz "Hardware from Launch" set to 52 weeks for each region. | ||
| 2 America and Other numbers are based on Japan's percentage of lifetime sales to first year sales (roughly 50%) | ||
| PS3 has only been out in the Others region for roughly 40 weeks* | ||
| * Except for Hong Kong and Taiwan, where the PS3 was released around the same time as Japan, but during those 18 weeks, only 13,000 units were sold. |
What I'm trying to show is that without the Wii sales, this generation uptake would be severely behind last generations. And no one can say that the other two would be selling better without the Wii because everyone always says that the Wii is no compitition to the true next gen machines. Second point: Without Wii, not because of it, could/would there have been a market crash, as people refuse to move up to the next generation, and stay with the current, PS2.
Third point: Time wouldn't help this situation, as so many big developers might even move back to last gen to help regain losses from failing "next gen games", and then the the next gen might never get a good hold, thus causing old hardware to remain a live for a lot longer. Killing his point about old hardware (as Freestyler said). Also, the Wii's hardware really isn't 10 years old, since it is many times and above the PS2's (as was the GameCube for that matter), and the hardware advantage of the Xbox did nothing to help it against the PS2.
Forth Point: The whole part under the I AM LEGEND shot to the "Lifespans" part. WOW. So Brawl is the same old thing, even with new characters, updated graphics, different gameplay controls, new features (level editor, enough said), online play, etc, while Final Fantasy, umm, what number are we on now? 13? Yeah, ok. MGS4, GTA.. uh 4 I think. Halo 3, honestly what is this guy smoking? He also goes on to say that FF, GT, and GTA are all 10 million plus sellers. Give some of what he's having! GTA and GT3-A Spec have sold over 10 million, but the most recent FF has only sold 5 million, according to this site. And Halo 3 has sold 6 million units... which, is nothing to laugh at. Says that only SSB:B will be the only game to sell over 5 million, even though WiiSports and WiiPlay have already, but take them out and MarioKart should, LoZ:TP could, SMG almost certainly will, point taken. THEN THE KILLER: No AAA titles have been release this generation thus far. I'll take what he's taking. Halo 3, not AAA? SMG, not AAA? umm. let me think. What about all those PS3 games that were suppose to lift the PS3 to the heavens? Lair, HS, etc? Not AAA? Assissign's Creed, COD4? WHAT? NO AAA, HOW DID WE LIVE! Anyway. Then he continues about how only PS3 has games, where the Wii (calling it the "Super GameCube, because the PS3 isn't a "Super PS2" which was actually a "SuperPS1") and 360 only have sequals. Ha... ok, do I even need to say it? Point: He's nuts.
LIfespans: Man, this is like candy. Talking about the Wii2 (more of an upgrade) coming in 2008. I guess that's only if they get Wii1 production problems under control? I hope? Also puts down the GameBoy/DS line for having an upgrade or revision every 18 months, even though the PS2 had revisions, and so did the PSP, but the DS revision really didn't do anything, and it's not like revisions are a big deal. I mean, the PS3 had what, 3 or 4 revisions in one year? That's a lot less than an average of 1 revision every 18 months... Jeez. You can't dis something for one thing but not do it to another console, without showing bias. 2010 isn't too bad for the next Xbox... but I think it'll be longer depending on how the 360 does, which we won't know what it's like until 2010. Either way, a bit early if you ask me. Doesn't really give a lifespan for the PS3, so I guess it'll be around forever. Point: He's a little weird, and biased... and yeah.
AND LASTLY (I know... I know, LONG POST): Conclusion, talks about how he doesn't want the gaming industry to go "the way of the movie industy" by saying "Bloated costs lead to increasingly safe and boring movies which try to please everyone and end up pleasing no one. Or in the dumb-and-dumber category, companies stop bothering making “good” games because the bad/cheap ones sell fine." Well, some "cheap" games cost upwards of 20-25 million on the PS3 and 360. That sounds "bloated" compared to the Wiis cheap games of like 5 million (though decent cheap games are probably more like 15 million, which isn't too much worse). Increasingly safe and boring movies? Wow. Where has he been? Lord of the Rings (I'm a huge fan)? Star Wars? Man, you have got to be joking. What's even worse, in this "bloated cost age", where movies like The Golden Compass costs $200 million to make, and yet we can buy it on DVD for under 20 bucks. Where as a game that costs 20 million to make costs $60? How in the world does that work? And... how is that bad? I like buying games like Zack and Wiki, because it's only 40 bucks and it's still a good game. How about the Zapper Bundle and Ghost Squad? For less than the price of Halo 3, you can get 2 half games, plus an attachment thing. That's what I want to see. And it's not cheaper quality games, there's still gonna be those massive costs games, but since more people have the potential to buy them, maybe they won't cost $60. Hopefully those costs can come down to $40. Point: It's not as bad as he makes it out to be. Jeez calm down.
And his last paragraph: "One thing I don’t buy into is the whole “next-gen is too expensive” argument. I seem to remember the same being said for the PS2 (an exact quote at the time was “only 2 or 3 companies in the world can afford to develop for this thing”) and look how “badly” that turned out." Yeah well, look at my table above and look at PS2 first year sales. It had as many as the PS3 and 360 did in the first year. So yeah, it's not as bad as people say. But maybe it is. You'd have to look at total PS2 sales compared to PS3+360 sales after 2 years to really know, because that's where we stand technically (because the 360 has been out for 2 years, and the PS2 was out 2 years before the GCN and XB).
http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=PS2®1=All&cons2=X360®2=All&cons3=PS3®3=All&weeks=104
That might help. The PS2 is at 24 million, while the combined PS3/360 is only 21 million. Still not a lot.. So I can sort of agree with him on this, but I think that the cost is a lot greater on the PS3/360 than it was on the PS2 (since the graphics are a lot more powerful compared to the PS2), so there needs to be more users to make up for it, and there isn't.
In conclusion... he makes too many stabs at Microsoft and Nintendo, while the things he gives credit to on the PS3 are basically the things he bashes on the other two.
