Forums - Sales Discussion - I think the 720 and PS4 will fail sales wise if there is no hook

_crazy_man_ said:
duckypwns said:
_crazy_man_ said:
duckypwns said:
OoSnap said:

What new will Microsoft and Sony bring to the table?


Nothing. They'll release the same old systems, with the same old controllers. They don't even try to add anything new. They say their consoles aren't incremental upgrades but that's all they are. They just up the power and demand more money from the consumer every now and then, abandoning their old hardware and alienating everyone who bought it.

What Sony and Microsoft don't understand about system power is that the people who care about graphics and power are on PC. Why would they settle for second best? So yes, the 720 and PS4 will be stronger than the Wii U. Not something for Sony and Microsoft fans to rejoice about though. All it does is up the production costs for Sony and Microsoft, and ultimately make their consumers pay more money for an inferior product.

Not to mention, when the 720 and PS4 come out there will be a price cut on the already cheap as hell Wii U... Put two and two together guys. It's easy to see who has the upperhand in generation 8 already.

Some People love good graphics but can't afford a good PC that will last 2-3 years (+$1,000), so a they settle with a beef console that lasts 5+ years at 1/2 - 1/3 the price.

And since we don't know squat about the other next gen consoles, its pretty arrgoant to say they won't.


Common misconception. A good gaming PC doesn't cost that much.

And it's not "arrogance", it's based off of the history of the consoles. Look at the standard control mechanisms between the PS1, PS2, and PS3, and then between the XBOX and the 360. Their "consoles" are nothing more than incremental upgrades and actually end up costing far more than a gaming PC.

True you could can get a machine that can play all of today's games no problem at about a little over 500 bucks.  But it won't last, hence why I'm saying to have a system that will last 2+ years you need to shell out the extra cash.   A console does that cheper and far longer, hence why console market > PC market sales.

You are describing what consoles SHOULD be. Not what they ARE. There is a difference.

The idea is supposed to be that the consoles are inferior - but the appeal is that they're cheaper. While the PC is supposed to be superior, but more expensive. That's not how it is, at least not with Sony and Microsoft's "consoles". You don't really need to upgrade your PC often. I built my most recent PC in Februrary of 2011 and it can still play everything new perfectly. Look at some of the big games that come out on PC, a recent example being Diablo 3. A toaster could run that game. No developers actually create these games that require super computers from the year 2427, because developers know that very few people could afford to game if that was required. Nobody would buy their games.



Around the Network
archbrix said:

Do you have proof or possess some clairvoyance to the contrary?  No?  Then it seems we're at an impasse on that subject, no?  Now then, I'll address your points:

Yes, the "hipsters" as you put it were a big part of the Wii craze.  But the Wii was not a console designed to have a 10 year life span and it was very front loaded.  The fact is that Nintendo could've kept making great games - core or otherwise - for the Wii and prolonged its sales.  Yes, the "craze" would have been over, but we wouldn't have seen such a drastic drop in sales as we saw when support was dropped almost altogether.

I'm sure that the decline wouldn't have been as bad had Nintendo released more core IP, but my argument is that it wouldn't have made THAT much of a difference. The Gamecube was a console aimed at the core and it's sales reflect, within reason, how well hard core gamers receive that company. Had the Wii been released with a regular controller, I'm positive we'd all be talking about Nintendo going out of business or going stricktly handheld. That's how bleak it was back then. Nintendo KNEW this, and that's why they took such a massive gamble to begin with.

IMO, Nintendo is going to be third this generation again because they never really advanced past that position with hard core gamers and for the most part, that's going to be who buys into next gen....core gamers. The casuals are playing farmville and Temple Run.



duckypwns said:
_crazy_man_ said:
duckypwns said:
_crazy_man_ said:
duckypwns said:
OoSnap said:

What new will Microsoft and Sony bring to the table?


Nothing. They'll release the same old systems, with the same old controllers. They don't even try to add anything new. They say their consoles aren't incremental upgrades but that's all they are. They just up the power and demand more money from the consumer every now and then, abandoning their old hardware and alienating everyone who bought it.

What Sony and Microsoft don't understand about system power is that the people who care about graphics and power are on PC. Why would they settle for second best? So yes, the 720 and PS4 will be stronger than the Wii U. Not something for Sony and Microsoft fans to rejoice about though. All it does is up the production costs for Sony and Microsoft, and ultimately make their consumers pay more money for an inferior product.

Not to mention, when the 720 and PS4 come out there will be a price cut on the already cheap as hell Wii U... Put two and two together guys. It's easy to see who has the upperhand in generation 8 already.

Some People love good graphics but can't afford a good PC that will last 2-3 years (+$1,000), so a they settle with a beef console that lasts 5+ years at 1/2 - 1/3 the price.

And since we don't know squat about the other next gen consoles, its pretty arrgoant to say they won't.


Common misconception. A good gaming PC doesn't cost that much.

And it's not "arrogance", it's based off of the history of the consoles. Look at the standard control mechanisms between the PS1, PS2, and PS3, and then between the XBOX and the 360. Their "consoles" are nothing more than incremental upgrades and actually end up costing far more than a gaming PC.

True you could can get a machine that can play all of today's games no problem at about a little over 500 bucks.  But it won't last, hence why I'm saying to have a system that will last 2+ years you need to shell out the extra cash.   A console does that cheper and far longer, hence why console market > PC market sales.

You are describing what consoles SHOULD be. Not what they ARE. There is a difference.

The idea is supposed to be that the consoles are inferior - but the appeal is that they're cheaper. While the PC is supposed to be superior, but more expensive. That's not how it is, at least not with Sony and Microsoft's "consoles". You don't really need to upgrade your PC often. I built my most recent PC in Februrary of 2011 and it can still play everything new perfectly. Look at some of the big games that come out on PC, a recent example being Diablo 3. A toaster could run that game. No developers actually create these games that require super computers from the year 2427, because developers know that very few people could afford to game if that was required. Nobody would buy their games.

I was saying 2+ years.  Of course your PC will be fine if its 1 1/2 old.  The first PC I built was 2009 for $1,200.  This year It needed to be upgraded (new OS, HD, and GPU) and now I should be good (minus a motherboard and CPU upgrade) for 2-3 more years.

When you said that MS/SOny had change that plan by making super expensive consoles, that really only applies to Sony, $400 was a bit high but nothing compared to the $600 that was the PS3. 



NNID: crazy_man

3DS FC: 3969 4633 0700 

 My Pokemon Trading Shop (Hidden Power Breeding)

HappySqurriel said:
logic56 said:
Turkish said:
OoSnap said:

I think the mass market will find the new consoles boring without a new control scheme or a new form of gameplay. I know gamers on forums love awesome graphics but the fact is the mass market could care less. Just look at the sales of the Wii and Nintendo handhelds. At least Wii U has the touchscreen gamepad and asymmetric gameplay. What new will Microsoft and Sony bring to the table?


I don't know what you're trying to say. PS360 have sold more than Wii. So the general public do seem to care about awesome graphics.

took the words out my mouth

come on Nintendo fans, it's time to leave the vaccum and face reality

Yeah, the 3DS being almost "a generation behind" the PS-Vita is hurting its sales ... The reality is that everyone likes better graphics but it is really tertiary concern. Given the choice the self proclaimed hardcore gamers would rather play a good First Person Shooter made for the Dreamcast than an excellent dance game for a bleeding edge PC. When it comes to buying a system the type, quality and quantity of the content matters far more than the technical impressiveness of the content; and the cost of the system actually matters more than the technical capabilities of the system (to an extent). People are happy to pay $300 for a system and many people will accept $400, but people would rather have a system that had less power and was less expensive than $400 than have a more powerful system that cost over $400.

 

ignoring the fact that everything you said has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread, I agree on all accounts...



One "hook" is having the high budget top-of-the-line visual experiences from the majority of the third party community (specifically Western/PC developers). I'm sorry but the 360/PS3 ended up with way more third party content than the Wii, and honestly I don't see that changing all that much next gen.

Even if Wii U gets ports, they're going to be scaled down and who wants to pay $60 for games running at 1/2 resolution, lower frame rate, less effects, etc. etc. etc. (people are already complaining about Assassin's Creed 3 on Wii U not having all the same particle effects, ports of top of the line 720/PS4 games will be far worse in their compromises).

The "hook" for the XBox 720 too I think is going to be that it's going to be more than just a game console, it's going to like a cable box/direct competitor to the iTV from Apple.

And Kinect 2. I'm not a fan of Kinect, but I think Kinect 2 is going to bring much more accurate motion sensing than the original Kinect.

And yeah I agree with some other points made in this thread, a lot of the "hipsters" and soccer moms who fuelled the original Wii to big sales are not going to come back. They got caught up in the craze, but video games are not a central part of their entertainment diet. Now that they all have iPads/iPhones/Facebook gaming, they're content with things like Angry Birds and Farmville. That's the "new" hot thing, "Wii" is soooo 2006 in a lot of people's eyes. 



Around the Network
prayformojo said:

"I'm sure that the decline wouldn't have been as bad had Nintendo released more core IP, but my argument is that it wouldn't have made THAT much of a difference. The Gamecube was a console aimed at the core and it's sales reflect, within reason, how well hard core gamers receive that company. Had the Wii been released with a regular controller, I'm positive we'd all be talking about Nintendo going out of business or going stricktly handheld. That's how bleak it was back then. Nintendo KNEW this, and that's why they took such a massive gamble to begin with.  IMO, Nintendo is going to be third this generation again because they never really advanced past that position with hard core gamers and for the most part, that's going to be who buys into next gen....core gamers."

First, if we have to use labels, I distinguish "core" gamers - from "majority" gamers - from "casual" gamers:  Core being the hardcore Dark Souls players that live for deep experiences; Majority gamers being the ones who are definitely gamers, but have no allegiance/hate and like a lot of variety (Mario, Halo, Gran Turismo); Casuals being the whim buyers and soccer moms.  Majority gamers are where the biggest sales come from as they are many in numbers and still buy software pretty regularly. 

Many majority gamers moved away from Nintendo since the N64 era because of the many mistakes Nintendo made.  While many enjoyed Mario 64, Zelda OoT and Goldeneye, the problem was there were so many games they couldn't get due to the cartridge format being such an obstacle for 3rd parties.  There was no Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, and N64 Castlevania sucked... all IPs that did great on the NES and SNES that were now on the Playstation; a console that Sony handled and marketed very, very well and successfully courted these "majority gamers".  With Gamecube, first, it launched a year after the PS2 already had a commanding lead with majority gamers.  Second, Nintendo tried to fight Sony on their terms... with a purple lunchbox.  I mean, I loved the GC, but I totally understand why the market rejected it.

In the days of the NES and SNES, generally all gamers loved Nintendo, despite their family-friendly image.  People weren't self concious at all about sharing Mario on the same console as Contra, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Ninja Gaiden, Castlevania, etc.  Street Fighter 2 - the biggest 3rd party game for its gen - sold much better on the SNES than the Genesis despite Sega's attempts to shine a kiddy light on Nintendo.  So Nintendo is no stranger to housing these types of gamers, and there is no reason that they can't appeal to them again if they play their cards right with what the market wants (including 3rd party games).  That doesn't mean that these gamers will ignore Durango or Orbis at all, but these kinds of consumers are often the ones who buy more than one console anyway.  And I'm not talking about Nintendo-haters; Nintendo can't court these people and obviously doesn't need to for success.  I'm talking about the majority gamers who made the NES (90%+ market leader), the PS1 and the PS2 giant successes.

 

"The casuals are playing farmville and Temple Run."

 This is a fallacy I see very commonly on forums today.  The statement itself isn't wrong, it's the idea that casuals, hipsters, whatever you want to call them are gone forever, swallowed up by a giant ios/android black hole never to return.  Many casuals bought the Wii because it was the "in" thing and "cool" to have, yes, but it also, most importantly, offered a fun experience for them.  People didn't all of a sudden stop seeking fun experiences.  If Nintendo delivers fun, unique experiences at an affordable price, there's no reason to believe that many of these consumers won't return if WiiU becomes the "in" thing in the market once again, which is what Nintendo is banking on.





@ Soundwave

Most gamers don't care much about graphics. The fact the Wii is on cusp of selling 100 million, the DS dominated the more powerful PSP and the 3DS doing the same with the more powerful Vita attests to that.

I know gamers on forums love their high end graphics but the mass market doesn't care and I have no doubt Sony and Microsoft have caught on and that is why I speculate their next consoles are not going to be as powerful as a lot of its fanbase expect.

I wouldn't doubt Microsoft and Sony are brainstorming or considering a new gaming concept or control interface instead of just offering more powerful hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft and Sony (more so Sony) came out with their own tablet gamepad.

As I said before if Nintendo acquires most multiplats and if its competitors brings nothing new to the table that would appeal to the mass market then Wii U will easily dominate next gen despite being the weakest console.

With development cost being higher I seriously doubt 3rd parties are going to neglect the Wii U as they did the Wii. Plus Nintendo seems to be much more aggressive getting 3rd parties on board. They already have (timed?) exclusives such as Rayman, Lego City, P 1000, Zombie U, and DQ X and a lot of multiplats.

Because Wii U is likely to be the least expensive, have most 3rd party multiplats, have its tablet gamepad and asymmetric gameplay concept, Nintendo is going to easily dominate next gen. This I have no doubt and I am going to stick by this prediction for years to come. Of course this could change if Wii U doesn't get the major multiplats and/or Sony/Microsoft brings something creative.

Microsoft and Sony should be worried because having just a more powerful hardware is not going to cut it. They need to pull out sonething creative if they want their next gen consoles to sell as much or more than its predecessors.



Oosnap the PSP was the first real handheld to be introduced to the market that has been dominated and monopolized by Nintendo for the last 20 years... don't really compare whats going on with the handheld market to home consoles... completely different.



PS4 visuals will cure eye cancer.
PS4's control scheme will work for every game concept conceivable.
PS4 will have the easiest development environment in the history of console gaming.
PS4 will have a built in ice-cream generator and 2x cup-holders.
PS4 will destroy the world economy; people will quit their jobs to play more.
PS4's network capability will outdo any PC.
PS4 will destroy gaming forums and gaming media; no one will walk away from the console to touch a PC.
PS4 will erase all of SONY's debt.
Xbox 3 will be pretty cool too.



4 ≈ One

OoSnap said:
@ Soundwave

Most gamers don't care much about graphics. The fact the Wii is on cusp of selling 100 million, the DS dominated the more powerful PSP and the 3DS doing the same with the more powerful Vita attests to that.

I know gamers on forums love their high end graphics but the mass market doesn't care and I have no doubt Sony and Microsoft have caught on and that is why I speculate their next consoles are not going to be as powerful as a lot of its fanbase expect.

I wouldn't doubt Microsoft and Sony are brainstorming or considering a new gaming concept or control interface instead of just offering more powerful hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft and Sony (more so Sony) came out with their own tablet gamepad.

As I said before if Nintendo acquires most multiplats and if its competitors brings nothing new to the table that would appeal to the mass market then Wii U will easily dominate next gen despite being the weakest console.

With development cost being higher I seriously doubt 3rd parties are going to neglect the Wii U as they did the Wii. Plus Nintendo seems to be much more aggressive getting 3rd parties on board. They already have (timed?) exclusives such as Rayman, Lego City, P 1000, Zombie U, and DQ X and a lot of multiplats.

Because Wii U is likely to be the least expensive, have most 3rd party multiplats, have its tablet gamepad and asymmetric gameplay concept, Nintendo is going to easily dominate next gen. This I have no doubt and I am going to stick by this prediction for years to come. Of course this could change if Wii U doesn't get the major multiplats and/or Sony/Microsoft brings something creative.

Microsoft and Sony should be worried because having just a more powerful hardware is not going to cut it. They need to pull out sonething creative if they want their next gen consoles to sell as much or more than its predecessors.

If gamers don't care about graphics why do the Call of Duty games sell 20 million on the HD consoles versus like 2-3 million tops on the Wii? No one wants to play the Wii version with crappier graphics, that's why.

The Wii had tremendous success when it was the hot new thing, but it's not 2006-2008 anymore, a lot has changed and Nintendo quite frankly since Wii Fit has not been able to come up with another casual fad/craze to maintain momenteum. Wii Music failed and since then they've been recycling old formulas (Wii Sports 2/Resort, Wii Play 2/Motion, Wii Fit 2, Brain Training 2/3, Style Savvy sequels, etc.). Nintendo Land isn't anything new either, it's Wii Play with Mario Party thrown in and the same tired mini-game formula.

If anything, Microsoft's Kinect is the more recent product hit in this cateogrey, but really all of this is becoming Apple's domain. Now that the hipster/soccer mom/teen girl audience has fallen in love with iOS/iPad/iPhone etc. the Wii is yesterday's news.

The next gen is probably from a casual POV going to be more about who (if anyone) can get the next set-top-box done before Apple takes over with iTV. And quite honestly, Microsoft is probably the best positioned to challenge there. Nintendo has good ideas, but they rarely follow through with non-gaming aspects (the 3DS eShop still feels like something straight out of 1996). 

Nintendo is basically competing against Apple for the soccer mom/hipster audience. Sony/MS have a more reliable audience of core gamers who live, eat, breathe gaming and will buy a new game console because they have to have the new games. Soccer mom? Does she really need that $300 Wii U? She already has Wii Fit which she last used in 2009. That's much more unreliable of a bet if you ask me. That type of consumer is just likely to walk out of the store with an iPad mini or whatever instead of a Wii U.

I think Nintendo will have a good launch period just because there's nothing new and the 3DS/Vita have failed miserably in North America to ignite the market (again casual gamers are not coming back to the 3DS, they have smartphones now). But 1-2 years from now it wouldn't surprise me if Wii U is already running out of steam.