By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 04 March 2012
Edit Thread
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 three 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.

Where is playing time dedicated:

I was pointing out the simple fact that people could now very well choose to dedicate their playing time to games alternative to dedicated consoles, much more so than in the past with either shareware (on PC) or flashgames in the past. The fact that these games are also free or very affordable makes it even more adoptable, so those calculations, as flawed as they are (Apple: not counting HW that's ridiculous, since at least a percentage of tablets and iphones are bought for their entertainment and gaming value), serve my point.

The question is: To what extent are gamers choosing the cheaper alternatives:

Ultimately, if the entertainment this provides to some justifies not having to purchase a dedicated console, then there is one less sales. The question is not whether this happens or not , but to what extent, and how it can affect Nintendo.

If it did not affect Nintendo, they would not have made a longwinded sermon on it at GDC 2011. Whether you agree with them to worry or not may be a different story, but I believe Nintendo should know by now never to rest on their laurels. I don't advocate they should make edgy business decisions, but they must anticipate.

Overlap between mobile/social and dedicated console consumers + many sold as gaming devices:

As for the demonstration to SpurgeonRyan, you must know that there is overlap, and people who buy nearly free offerings also buy the more expensive dedicated consoles.

Not to mention, in Q1 2012, here is the number of iPhones sold. I'd be far-pressed to think none of these were sold mainly as game platforms with phone capabilities. Otherwise they would have chosen another phone.

Probably to help demonstrate, here is the iPad trend vis-à-vis the iPhone and iPod trends.