RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:
Here's a simple exercise: Estimate how much money the average consumer has spent on gaming on the Wii, the 360, the PS3 and the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch. Just in rough terms, you don't need to go into ultraspecific details or make longwinded assumptions.
|
Would total Hardware sales and total software sales, each multiplied by an average HW and SW price be acceptable?
Mind you how would you expect him to extimate Apple game App sales? And DL content on all main consoles? I'm interested in the exercise.
|
Wii: console ($200) + six games ($50 each = $300) + Wiimote/Nunchuk ($50) = $550 in very basic terms.
360: console ($300) + eight games ($50 each = $400) = $700 in very basic terms.
Apple: ten games ($2 each = $20) = $20 in very basic terms.
spurgeonryan's point was that the Nintendo consumer is far closer to the Apple consumer than the Sony or Microsoft consumer. A simple calculation shows that this is complete nonsense.
happydolphin said:
It's sad to think that some don't realize this basic fact.
What attracted consumers to Angry Birds and Farmville is very similar to what attracted consumers to Pokemon. It's affordable, it's addictive, it's viral. To think this kind of social effect has no impact on consumers' perception of Nintendo's offerings is denial at best.
While people can't play WiiU on the go, they can certainly play Angry Birds at home.
Having said all that, of course, Nintendo games have their own value that some customers will understand. But to say that none will come to choose Angry birds over Nintendo offerings in certain cases is absolute denial.
|
Pokémon: Gameboy ($100) + game ($30) = $130
Angry Birds: game ($1) = $1 or free download
Farmville: free
Once again, a simple calculation shows that two of these these products aren't even close to be in the same ballpark. The price of admission for Pokémon far exceeds the price of Angry Birds and Farmville.
KungKras said:
From reading Innovators dilemma, that sounds eerily like the incumbent mindset.
Now I think those games are as much threat to Nintendo as Flash games were on PCs in the 2000's but the way you worded it was like a classic example of incumbant thinking.
|
Perhaps it was worded in such a way, but, like you correctly noted, the difference is that this mindset is absolutely justified in this instance, because the "threat" is not equipped to make any headway and retooling the devices (i.e. adding buttons and sticks for more tactile experiences) will make them unappealing for their primary purpose.
|
the era in which i owned a DS and not an iphone.
DS: 23 games * ~$35 (avg) = $805
iphone: 0 games = $0
the era in which i owned a DS and an iphone
DS: 0 games = $0
iphone: ~50 games * $2 (avg) = $100 plus whatever the devs got in ad revenue that lowers my cost of entry but not the devs revenue.
