Cinemablend: Wii U Is Winning Next-Gen Gaming, Not Xbox One Or PS4

[Nirvana_Nut85]

fatslob-:O said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Oh dear god. Please for a moment, stop and think about what you are saying. How do you think the masses as you like to put it would have been able to deem whether Haze and Lair were of quality or were not? Did they look at the cover and go “Well that does not look like a quality game”. Did they look through screenshots and videos which did in fact look promising? Most likely they looked at the review which contributed to the purchase. You keep claiming that I don’t understand how “the masses” work yet your own argument is contradicting in itself. Either they buy in an impulsive unpredictable manner, and are completely affected by marketing or they are more intelligent that and do they’re homework. The fact of the matter is that it is a mix of both, which is why certain games of lower quality end up selling better than others that are critically acclaimed. As a Nintendo fan I will admit, Carnival games and Wii party didn’t flop because a significant amount of soccer moms who purchase the Wii for there family look at games like that and go “well that looks fun for the kids”. 

@Bold Do you have any statistics to prove that they go looking for reviews ? (Not from the forums but from the so called "soccer moms" because I am looking for non biases all around.) You clearly demonstrated that you obviously don't understand how masses will buy a game. The masses do NOT impulsively buy games immediately. The way a game can be successful towards the masses is that a small fraction of them are willing to try them. If they deem the game as a high quality title then they will spread words to others and you get a wild fire affect of demand. Games like mario kart and NSMBWII did not sell upon tens of millions on release. The reason they have attained these legs is through the words of other parts of the masses. Your assumption that they impulsively buy is incorrect and disingenuous at best. 

The masses do not care about review scores, it's as simple as that otherwise their wouldn't be such distortions in sales across each games. 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

I don’t feel it was excessive. It was an analogy that gave a comparison. Purchasing a game for the ‘masses” is still an investment for them. So your saying that an experienced gamer would not be able to analyze a persons interest and then give a non biased opinion of a game to help direct them to an experience they would enjoy?  I don’t think you understood what I was trying to say. The opinion to analyze someone’s interest and recommend them a genre that would suit them would be substantially of more value coming from an experienced gamer than a soccer mom saying “well just buy this game because it looks fun”. They wouldn’t be able to give the same analysis for a game recommendation based on this lack of experience and knowledge. Therefore, financial adviser vs. stoner is not that far fetched when comparing!

You see the problem with "experienced gamers" is that they are biased by their own defintion of what a defines a "quality" game. The reality of it all is that the market responds differently. The market simply has the greater presence in comparison to the "experienced gamer". What the "market" thinks about the "experienced gamer" is simply irrelevant to the amount of votes that were shown. 

@Bold The problem with that logic is your equating opinions that pertains to games compared to a financial adviser that has credentials to do the jobs.

The votes or opinions of a "soccer mom" and a "gamer" is equal as far as the market is concerned, it's as simple as that. The recommendation of a financial adviser is incomparable to that of a stoner because a financial adviser is trained to manage something as objective as financial wealth and for that your example was definitely far fetched.

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

You’re completely underestimating the ability of marketing. You’re also not factoring in that recognition is key. If the public is not educated to the existence of a console and believes it’s an expensive add on, that will impact the sales of such said console. The Wii U has worth while exclusives, there are many sites known for low balling Nintendo games and having quite the “hate-on” so to speak who have given good reviews for the likes of Pikmin, Zelda and SMW3D.  The games are not Nintendo’s problem (at this point), Nintendo's problem is that the hardware itself is not selling. They haven’t managed to make the hardware look attractable and came in at too high of a price due to the game pad. The system looks as if the Wii was bundled with an add-on at a higher price. Most people as I’ve stated over and over again still have no clue what that the system even exists.  Nintendo have not be able to properly communicate that to the customer “which” is the reason for it’s sales.  As for SMW3D, since its release, The Wii U has gone from 3.95mill to 4.5 in a matter of a few weeks, which shows Mario moving consoles, just not to the extent that some people thought. 

Marketing will do nothing if the masses do not realize you definition of quality pertaining to a game. Therefore these games deserve low sales because the masses just simply do not have anything worthwhile to mention about these games. If the WII U truly had worthwhile exclusives then they wouldn't be having non existant legs. Again I have to keep telling you that "SOFTWARE SELLS HARDWARE". What exactly is so hard to understand about this statement ? Price can be an issue but all it comes down to a gaming console is the games. Would you rather a console with all your favourite game that cost $1000 for a console or would you rather a $100 console with absolutely no games ? The masses know what the WII U is, it's just that they don't want it as you can clearly see for a year now. SM3DW didn't move alot of hardware because the market thought it was a low quality title. In other words SM3DW is a flop compared to other mario titles. 

 

It’s rather amusing. You’re asking me to provide statistics, claiming my views are incorrect yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your opinion which in fact is just an opinion; however an article I found showed that in 1998 (it’s obviously gotten worse) showed that impulse buying contributed to $4Billion in North America alone. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20130712/MONEY01/307120006/ The Wii being the “hot item” for a few years…. Well, you get the picture. Please provide any other system where a game with a universal rating of 5 that garnered multi millions in sales, for any other system…..oh wait, you cant! You can’t because it did not exist prior to the Wii. You’re also falsely grouping everyone together. The masses are divided into groups and prior to the Wii, the soccer mom “was not” buying the console for herself. This type of demographic did not really exist. Your also forgetting a lot of shovel ware was being moved off the shelves when the Wii was introduced. The system itself was a phenomenon and people were “impulsively buying” any piece of software from what they could get their hands on, especially during the holidays, the shelves were bare. Did you not visit the stores during the first 2 years of it’s existence?  Instead of claiming I’m being disingenuous, back up your opinion please.

 

Yes we are biased. A good game is one that can provide a rich experience and enjoyment, however, that doesn’t mean that I would recommend Dark Souls for my 7 year old daughter or for my mom because they would not enjoy the experience. Due to my gaming experience I have the ability to discern what someone would enjoy, its simple psychology that you can apply when you’re knowledgeable with games. The rest of your response is absolute nonsense and at this point I believe you are just grasping at straws in order to keep it going. You talk about the market yet, you do not go into how it changes. Take a brief look at the history of Carnival games when the “impulse buying “ stopped and the Wii was no longer a hot commodity (New carnival games only moved 540,000 copies).
What job I use an analogy for is irrelevant. As stated previously, for some people “A GAME IS AN INVESTMENT”. This holds true especially if the consumer is on an income that only allows a limited number of purchases.  The gamer vote is also more relevant as the game will continue purchasing down the road where the soccer mom wont. Companies loose money due to this or have terrible sales such as described above.

 

 

Again as describe previously, that statement is incorrect. The value of the Wii was the motion control and the ease of use. In this case the console itself and its design was the significant contributor to the success of it’s games. Impulse buying as stated early played a major factor in games that were quite terrible selling overly well which when he hype died down, so did the shovel ware sales. I do not believe you have clearly read my responses. I never argued that software does not sell hardware. You seem to digress from the actual debate quite often. The masses do not know what the Wii U is, hell there were articles where employees of stores did not know the difference. The Wii U has been dead for quite some time and it will take more than Mario to get the heart beat going. For a console to increase its user base by 13% in two weeks since Mario’s release means thatit’s moving console and by your numbers is not a low quality title