Hi and welcome to the forum and sorry to be mean but there is some rubbish in this article...

Point 1 - There are still over 130 million owners of last generation consoles who have yet to upgrade (mainly PS2 owners waiting to see if the PS3 will be worth buying).

How do you know this? How do youy know that the 43 million or so that have bought this gen weren't included in the 130 million count then take away repurchases for breakdowns (e.g. I had 4 PS2's last gen due to breakages)

Point 2 - "The Nintendo Wii could very well be a bubble that is already bursting" you then say "This is not based on ebay prices or shop inventory. It is based on the buzz and hype going on amongst ordinary everyday people. Before Christmas everyone wanted a Wii and everyone was talking about it. Now they are talking about other things" - I wanted a christmas tree before Xmas now I talk about other things but I bet they're still around next year, also who is "everyone". We have a console thats been selling faster than the DS did at the equivelant time in it's cycle and is already set to sell more than the gamecube yet everyone uses pointless words like bubble and fad, sorry man but read this stupid loaded article a million times over and the web is flooded with them.

Point 3 - you say the Wii is not next gen cos it lacks HD graphics (top this with you counting GTA exra content to be the biggest coup for 08 and it's not hard to see where you gaming interests lie)  then I reckon you should watch http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/ (head tracking) and consider Nintendo's secrecy and their statement saying we wouldn't recognise Wii's software in 5 years time then maybe you could admit there's a possibility it may just be more next gen than any of us can comprehend.

Could go on but I cant be bothered

Gamerace said: The average gamer doesn't care about graphics as much as gameplay. That's why the system with the best graphics has never won in any generation. PS2 had the weakest and yet totally murdered the more powerful GC and Xbox. So in that respect, what has MS or Sony done with this new generation of machines to introduce new gameplay? Ummm... nothing. LittleBigPlanet may be the only notable exception. Otherwise it's all the same old stuff, been there, done that, yeah it's prettier - so what? The Wii now only brings something new to existing games, but brings in entirely new experiences like Wii Sports/WiiFit. I don't think they'll feel any pressure to have to upgrade. However MS and Sony may if they hope to expand beyond just core gamers.

Hi and thanks for your input. I think that when you have bought a new 40 inch HDTV you will want to see HD games on it. As these screens become cheaper most people will buy one. This will make the Wii pretty redundant. However I agree with your initial sentance and have written about it on my blog: http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/ Have we got it wrong with graphics? When I was working at Codemasters in the mid eighties Richard Darling was considered to be a gaming god with a string of number one titles at Mastertronic and then Codemasters to his name. So it was really interesting that the game machine he had at home was a dated Atari VCS 2600 console when he could easily have used a far more powerful and modern machine like a Commodore Amiga or Atari ST instead. The reason he gave was that gameplay was the most important thing, not graphics. And that the VCS 2600 had finely crafted and polished games in which the gameplay was paramount. This is a debate that has cropped up again and again over the years. Always the platform makers give us ever higher graphics capabilities. And nearly always game developers throw ever increasing resources at utilising those graphics capabilities to the maximum. What a game looks like has become the most important thing. Yet talk to serious gamers about their favourite games. Often you hear the names of titles like Elite, Goldeneye and Super Mario 64. Games with quite miserable graphics compared with more modern offerings. And this seems to be something that Nintendo understand better than Sony and Microsoft, which has given them a massive competetive advantage. Basically Nintendo did not go HDTV with the Wii whilst their competitors did with their latest consoles. This looks relatively sensible as the vast majority of homes do not have HDTV and the adoption rate will be relatively slow because non HD TVs do a perfectly good job. The advantages to Nintendo are firstly that it makes their console cheaper to manufacture. This means that they can sell the base console at a profit whilst their competitors have to subsidise the retail price. It also gives Nintendo far more room to manoevre when it comes to using the price mechanism to take on that competition. The second advantage is that games are a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to develop. In fact they are more comparable with PS2 games in this area. This, obviously, has a massive effect on what appears on the game shop shelf and when it appears. Quite simply it should be far easier for a publisher to make a profit on Wii, which explains why so much development resource has been directed at it.

Bruceongames said: Gamerace said: The average gamer doesn't care about graphics as much as gameplay. That's why the system with the best graphics has never won in any generation. PS2 had the weakest and yet totally murdered the more powerful GC and Xbox. So in that respect, what has MS or Sony done with this new generation of machines to introduce new gameplay? Ummm... nothing. LittleBigPlanet may be the only notable exception. Otherwise it's all the same old stuff, been there, done that, yeah it's prettier - so what? The Wii now only brings something new to existing games, but brings in entirely new experiences like Wii Sports/WiiFit. I don't think they'll feel any pressure to have to upgrade. However MS and Sony may if they hope to expand beyond just core gamers.   Hi and thanks for your input. I think that when you have bought a new 40 inch HDTV you will want to see HD games on it. As these screens become cheaper most people will buy one. This will make the Wii pretty redundant.

Bruceongames said: Gamerace said: The average gamer doesn't care about graphics as much as gameplay. That's why the system with the best graphics has never won in any generation. PS2 had the weakest and yet totally murdered the more powerful GC and Xbox. So in that respect, what has MS or Sony done with this new generation of machines to introduce new gameplay? Ummm... nothing. LittleBigPlanet may be the only notable exception. Otherwise it's all the same old stuff, been there, done that, yeah it's prettier - so what? The Wii now only brings something new to existing games, but brings in entirely new experiences like Wii Sports/WiiFit. I don't think they'll feel any pressure to have to upgrade. However MS and Sony may if they hope to expand beyond just core gamers.   Hi and thanks for your input. I think that when you have bought a new 40 inch HDTV you will want to see HD games on it. As these screens become cheaper most people will buy one. This will make the Wii pretty redundant. However I agree with your initial sentance and have written about it on my blog: http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/ Have we got it wrong with graphics? When I was working at Codemasters in the mid eighties Richard Darling was considered to be a gaming god with a string of number one titles at Mastertronic and then Codemasters to his name. So it was really interesting that the game machine he had at home was a dated Atari VCS 2600 console when he could easily have used a far more powerful and modern machine like a Commodore Amiga or Atari ST instead. The reason he gave was that gameplay was the most important thing, not graphics. And that the VCS 2600 had finely crafted and polished games in which the gameplay was paramount. This is a debate that has cropped up again and again over the years. Always the platform makers give us ever higher graphics capabilities. And nearly always game developers throw ever increasing resources at utilising those graphics capabilities to the maximum. What a game looks like has become the most important thing. Yet talk to serious gamers about their favourite games. Often you hear the names of titles like Elite, Goldeneye and Super Mario 64. Games with quite miserable graphics compared with more modern offerings. And this seems to be something that Nintendo understand better than Sony and Microsoft, which has given them a massive competetive advantage. Basically Nintendo did not go HDTV with the Wii whilst their competitors did with their latest consoles. This looks relatively sensible as the vast majority of homes do not have HDTV and the adoption rate will be relatively slow because non HD TVs do a perfectly good job. The advantages to Nintendo are firstly that it makes their console cheaper to manufacture. This means that they can sell the base console at a profit whilst their competitors have to subsidise the retail price. It also gives Nintendo far more room to manoevre when it comes to using the price mechanism to take on that competition. The second advantage is that games are a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to develop. In fact they are more comparable with PS2 games in this area. This, obviously, has a massive effect on what appears on the game shop shelf and when it appears. Quite simply it should be far easier for a publisher to make a profit on Wii, which explains why so much development resource has been directed at it.

In case your not aware, they did a poll on Wii's voting channel on how many users world wide had HD tvs and the results were over 50%.  Seems it doesn't matter to them one bit that Wii isn't HD.  Polls also show that the majority of HD tv owners are not actually even getting any HD content on their tv's either.  I think only 40% had HD channels and even less had HD-DVD and Blu-ray.   Also NPD found most 360/PS3 owners didn't even know their game console was HD enabled.

Most people buy HD because it's big, flat and much lighter and more stylish than SDtv.  The fact that the screen resolution is better doesn't seem to matter to the majority.

 

As for graphics vs gameplay - obviously we're in agreement (didn't read the article though).  In previous generations the greater power enable new gametypes that the previous generations couldn't handle (3d vs 2d for example).  Not so much from PS1 to PS2 and even less so far from PS2 to PS3.  That's one reason why I think Wii is dominating and will continue too.  People look for innovation and don't really see any in 360/PS3.

Welcome to the forum Bruce, its always nice to have another viewpoint here and don't let the fact that folks jump right into debate deter you. We might be a feisty bunch but we try to keep it civil =)

On that note, I do feel I have to echo the sentiment expressed by others. But first let me say I definitely appreciate the market position of MS and Sony and I have actually entered predictions in the prediction league on this site that both will increase hardware sales for 2008. They both have strong brands with appeal to the core gamer and their games reflect that with brands that are equally strong and in some cases stronger.

Unfortunately I think much of the "shock" people experience from the success of the Wii is from underestimating the casual market, which I feel you have done, and I will explain why and how. People identify the video game market with the Halo, GTA, and MGS4 style of games and so traditionally when they look at a list of games those are going to stand out and be the big titles. I believe the disconnect comes when they try to apply this same formula onto the Wii and attempt to quantify or predict its success based on that formula which I believe you have done here as most analysts, columnists, and enthusiasts have done before you.

Ironically the path Nintendo has chosen for its Console and Portable hardware strategy is to remove emphasis on niche core gaming and return emphasis to a "Games are for everyone" type of approach. A short time ago this type of strategy was thought foolhardy as the mainstream looked down on games for the most part. But the irony is that this strategy that got them to where they are is diametrically opposed to the types of paradigms people use to define and explain it. So really there is no mystery in the continued underestimation of the Wii and the reasons behind it.

Whether people like it, love it, hate it, or could care less about it, the Wii is changing the way the mainstream views video games and in doing so they are changing the market landscape. As the pioneers of this new market landscape they are of course best equipped to deal with it and I think not only are rival companies ill-prepared, but so to are reviewers, journalists, developers, and clearly analysts as well.

So the question I would pose is this: How many expectations must Nintendo, the DS, and the Wii shatter before "the industry" starts recognizing this shift?

I don't believe Nintendo is preparing to swallow the industry or that it will become the unstoppable juggernaut it once was. But when a console ramps up its production higher than any console ever has and continues to sell out in most markets for more than a year past launch and continues to do so to this day....when a handheld brings moms and grandmas, and dads and grandpas into the game shop...when a console gets your aunt, uncle, or your wife interested in gaming....well I would hope most people would take pause and realize that this type of thing is something more than just a simple passing fad. That there is deep and genuine consumer interest and that maybe...just maybe...the GTA, Halo, and MGS style games aren't going to be the deciding factors they once were.

This of course opens a whole other debate about what becomes of the old paradigm and its landmarks, but I will leave that for another day.

Most people buy HD because it's big, flat and much lighter and more stylish than SDtv. The fact that the screen resolution is better doesn't seem to matter to the majority.

The wife is letting me buy one cos it matches the coffee table and out of 106 tv channels only 1 is in HD and I personally couldn't care less

Bruceongames said: RolStoppable said: Bruceongames said:   That is a very quick overview. It is impossibly to say who will do best out of the three. This generation of consoles is spectacularly good at making analyst’s predictions look stupid. One major change that has emerged is that Microsoft are now a player at the top table in the console industry. Just watching how they use this new found position will be fascinating. Hardware sales? Nintendo. Software sales? Nintendo. Marketshare? Nintendo. Profits? Nintendo. That actually isn't hard to predict, let alone impossible. Besides that, you are making a lot of mistakes in your analysis (Wii is a fad, SSBB and Mario Kart don't seem to exist, HD is important). But maybe that's the reason how you came to the conclusion that it is hard to predict who will do best out of the three. Oh, and welcome to VGChartz.   Thanks for the welcome. I am not a fanboy for any manufacturer. I doubt your predictions for 2008 because of GTA IV, MGS4, Halo Wars, Ninja Gaiden II, Too Human, Fable 2, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, etc. There are just too many AAA must have, mega selling titles coming out on 360 and PS3. Also Wii has been bought mainly by casual gamers and will have a low attach rate compared with the more hardcore owners of 360s and PS3s who buy far more games. However anything can and will happen in this generation, so you may well end up being right!!

 So?... Why is Super Mario Galaxy at 4 million+ in a mere 2 months already?... And btw, i wouldn't call RE4 or Zelda casual, Re4 now has 1.3 milllion sold and climbing and Zelda is stuck at 4 million something for the Wii version and 5.5 million something for Wii and Cube combined... Those aren't bad attachratio's i guess 

Super Mario Galaxy above 4 million with 19.5 million Wii's = above 20%.

Zelda at 4+ million with 19.5 million Wii's = above 20 %.

1.3 million RE4 with 19.5 million Wii's sold = ~7%.

 

For comparison:

Gears of War: Around 4 million sold at 16 mil X360 sold: 25%.

And the only thing that sold better then GoW is Halo 3... The rest (of X360's AAA titles) has an attach-rate comparable with that of RE4. 

anyway a console with a growing user base and cheaper to develop surely doesn't have to measure attach rates. I'm pretty sure Capcom is more concerned with how many copies RE4 have sold rather than it's attach rate.

Also if you look at the success of SMG, Mario and Sonic, GH3, REUC (already met it's sales target and will hit 1M in 08) and the fact all of these games were released in last quarter it's plain to see the Wii's software sales are on the incline and this cannot be used as proof that the Wii's bubble is bursting.

Bruceongames said: I doubt your predictions for 2008 because of GTA IV, MGS4, Halo Wars, Ninja Gaiden II, Too Human, Fable 2, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, etc. There are just too many AAA must have, mega selling titles coming out on 360 and PS3.

 Most of those games you mentioned will be bought by the same pool of players.  Say the 6 games other than LBP/GTA sell 5mil each on average.  That won't be 6x5=30million people.  It'll be more like 10-15million uniques. 

 Little Big Planet is the only real exception there and GTA will sell to more casual users who don't buy most of the others, but in general it's the same demographic.

 

 

 

i have owned at least one hdtv for 5 years now; i have 3 currently (plasma in bedroom, plasma in living room, tube in loft); i subscribe to dozens of hd channels and watch almost exclusively hd content

however, i'm fine with wii being 480p, just like i'm fine with dvds being 480p (until price goes down on those players and dvds, as i'd prefer hd)

so if i am ok with it, when i am an hd snob, the average consumer that can't even tell the difference between sd and hd (my sis-in-law) or the consumer that bought a flat screen tv and doesn't even run hd cables to the television (high % of consumers) don't care either

people continue to look at the market through their eyes...u gotta look at the perspective of the average consumer, not your own perspective, or your friends' perspective