| Ka-pi96 said: Yeah, your right not as many people buy Sony/Microsoft consoles for exclusives, most people buy them for the 3rd party games, but that doesn't mean that no one buys them for the exclusives. You have made a mistake in assuming that games are the only reason consoles sell though. You say people owning either PS4/Xbox One have little incentive to buy the other and that people owning PC have little incentive to buy either. That's just not true. For starters, people like to play with their friends, if they don't have the same platforms then at least one of them is going to have to buy something new in order to play with each other. You said 'PC has plenty of exclusives but how many people spend the money to modify their systems just to be able to run them?' but that isn't just true of exclusives. There are plenty of PC owners that like you say don't want to spend the money modifying their systems in order to play games, so that too is another incentive to buy consoles, whether that be for their exclusives or multiplat games doesn't really matter. Not only that, none of this really counters my point of not everyone has a second system. There are plenty of people that will only buy one, whether that is because they only want one or maybe they want more but just can't afford them, that doesn't really matter. Those people are going to be looking for a primary system since that will be all they get. The Wii U may very well be a primary system for some of them, but setting its self up as the best second system is going to entice very few of the single system owners to choose Wii U. |
Didn't I just say that there were a handful of exclusives that push PlayStation & XBox systems?
My point was that those exclusives are not really the driving force behind those systems' sales & I exampled that thoroughly.
Without those big 3rd party games those systems would be kaput. The smaller numbers of people buying XBox & PlayStation for their exclusives would simply not be enough to sustain the systems.
And that part of your quote I bolded I DEFINITELY have to address.
How is it that we have gotten to the point where people say GAMES are not the only reason GAME CONSOLES sell?
How did we get to this twilight zone? What universe am I in?
GAMES ARE the only reason to buy GAME CONSOLES. People buy consoles on the games or THE PROMISE of games to come.
That's it. That's all it will EVER be.
Nobody buys a console for the primary purpose of talking to their friends in videochat.
You can do that on your smartphone or your computer.
Nobody buys a console for the primary purpose of watching Hulu, Netflix, or Crunchyroll.
There's a host of devices you could do that on.
Nobody buys a console for the primary purpose of storing pictures or music.
Nobody buys a console for the primary purpose of using sending email.
Nobody buys a console for the primary purpose of writing office documents.
You buy a Game Console for GAMES! Everything else is just supplementary features to pad out the product.
If someone buys a PS3 just to watch Blu-ray movies they would be a fool especially when you can get a Blu-ray player for 100's of dollars cheaper.
I use my 3DS to check things online by internet, to play music, to watch YouTube but if that thing had no games I wouldn't even own it since I can do those things better on other devices.
When you say "play with their friends", listen to what you just said: PLAY. Meaning there's a GAME involved, right?
Most people are not going to buy BOTH an XBox One AND a PlayStation 4. Why? Because it would be REDUNDANT.
There are ALWAYS the ones who buy ALL consoles but they aren't as many in that category.
With XOne & PS4 being so similar, the incentive for an owner of one to buy the opposite is small.
As for the PC folks, I reference my relative. He used to be a major console player but this generation he has become entirely PC gamer.
He goes on & on about updating his computer with the latest components & lives on Steam & GOG.
Before XOne & PS4 launched, I asked him which console he was going to get assuming he would buy these like he bought X360 & PS3.
He told me he's not thinking about buying one at all. I was SHOCKED! HIM?! The one who bought the original PS3 at 599 U.S. Dollars?!
Recently he contemplated MAYBE buying one or the other eventually but he seems to be more concerned with upgrading his computer parts.
Guess what this relative of mine asked me recently.
He asked me what would be the best bundle for Wii U.
Oh, he's not buying it for himself. He's not really cool on Nintendo anymore.
But he's buying it for his wife. His wife didn't ask for a PS4 or XOne AT ALL.
So my relative who seems to be skipping the 8th gen consoles is actually going to buy a Wii U FIRST. Hahahaha! 
I told him the Super Mario 3D World bundle that has NintendoLand with it. 2 games right out the box.
And there you have it. ANOTHER PC + Wii U household.
PC gamers who don't play the upgrade game are probably not gonna be PC gamers long.
At least not the high-end type. The PC gamers who don't upgrade are the Facebook/Browser game players or the ones who buy Nancy Drew/Mystery Case Files/'500,000 games' compilations. Maybe the World of Warcraft players at best.
If they want to play PS4 or XOne versions over the PC versions, then they are console gamers anyway.
If the PC guys are looking for exclusives they will be drawn closer to Wii U over PS4 & XOne because the games ARE exclusive in more ways than just availability.
I'll guarantee you that there be more 'PS4 + Wii U', 'XOne + Wii U', 'PC + Wii U' matchups than 'PS4 + XOne', 'XOne + PS4', 'PC + PS4', 'PC + XOne' matchups in this generation.
You undid your point talking about those who "play with their friends" implying that PS4 or XOne owners would buy the opposite to do so.
What is more likely to happen is that friend-group is going to pick one platform over the other & the rest of the friend-group picks the same.
If the influential ones in the group picks XOne then his friends pick XOne to play with them.
If the influential ones in the group picks PS4 then his friends pick PS4 to play with them.
An odd friend in the group may have both systems so the friends just go to his house & play on the opposite group system.
There's no reason for people to buy 2 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfares for 2 systems when they are identical.
The group picks one console & everybody follows suit to play along.
However there IS a reason for that group of XOne friends or PS4 friends to pick up a Wii U for The Legend of Zelda U since it stands out.
The game is different so you can pick up both Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare AND The Legend of Zelda U. No redundancy.
If any console is gonna pick up on the Second Console advantage it's Wii U not PS4 & XOne. Just like Wii did against PS3 & X360.
You can "play with your friends" in a game like Splatoon, an online 4-on-4 extravaganza, or Super Smash Bros. for Wii U with its unique amiibo functionality (each amiibo fighter being unique to how each player trained it).
True, not everyone has a second system but Nintendo doesn't need everyone. They just need ENOUGH.
And they will get that in the 8th Generation. Just like Wii did in the 7th.
Differentiation is VITAL.
| Ka-pi96 said: Nintendo may have successfully forced new standards on people before, but you are missing one very important factor. Nintendo aren't the only big console manufacturer around anymore. They can't force things on people because people have a choice. If people don't like what Nintendo is trying to force on them then they can choose to buy a Sony or Microsoft console instead. The only way Nintendo could make the gamepad a standard is if people choose to accept it and so far they have been choosing to take their console business elsewhere. 'Rebellious children you WILL do what Dad says!' You used this as an example but it was missing something. It should have had 'or go to Mum who will let you do what you want' on the end of it. |
Wow. I love this one.
Nintendo was NEVER the only big console manufacturer around.
They ALWAYS had competition. What are you talking about?
They somehow got the NES Control Pad adopted as standard even though they went up against industry founder Atari & arcade king Sega.
They somehow got the SNES L & R shoulder buttons & the color-coded diamond-layout action buttons adopted as standard even though they went up against tech conglomerate NEC & arcade kings Sega & SNK.
They somehow got the N64 analog Control Stick & grip triggers adopted as standard even though they went up against arcade king Sega & multimedia conglomerate Sony.
They somehow got the GC Wavebird's wireless adopted as standard even though they went up against arcade king Sega, multimedia conglomerate Sony & computer emperor Microsoft.
They somehow got the Wii motion-sensing, IR-pointing, speaker-having Wiimote adopted as standard even though they went up against multimedia conglomerate Sony & computer emperor Microsoft.
They're somehow getting the Wii U Gamepad adopted as standard even though they're going up against multimedia conglomerate Sony (Remote Play Vita) & computer emperor Microsoft (SmartGlass).
Even in handhelds, they got the DS touchscreen adopted as standard even though they went up against multimedia conglomerate Sony.
It even got adopted outside of the console gaming world by computer emperor Apple, World Wide Web emperor Google with tech conglomerate Samsung.
What do you mean Nintendo was the "only big console manufacturers around"?
Customers have ALWAYS had a choice & yet still Nintendo's standards permeate the industry.
It's because Nintendo does it the right way. RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITHOUT OPTIONS.
When they lead in such a way, it won't be long before the others follow & thus we have a new standard.
WHY do the others follow? Because if they don't match themselves up with Nintendo's standards, Nintendo will have cultivated this potential audience all to itself & they will be locked out. It's very easy to understand.
My relative who fought the N64 analog Control Stick for years & years, decades & decades had NO CHOICE but to give in when all the others followed that Control Stick standard.
Take your business elsewhere? Nintendo CHANGES the business. There IS no elsewhere.
Mum will let you do what you want? Dad's the head of the household. Dad pays the bills.
And The Kids will not tear this marriage apart playing one parent against the other.
| Ka-pi96 said: I'm just going to omit what was said here because there isn't really much to discuss, I don't really disagree with you here. |
Cool. Glad we could come to an agreement. 
| Ka-pi96 said: I was only counting home consoles here, since I thought the thread was mainly about the Wii U, but fair enough. As for the total software sales, those numbers are VERY close. When you consider Nintendo have made consoles in 7 generations and Sony only 4 that means that more games sell on Sony consoles per generation than on Nintendo consoles. As for mentioning Nintendo's impressive 1st party sales, they are irrelevant. Your original point wasn't about who was the most succesful publisher (which would of course be Nintendo) it was about the most successful console maker. You also say no other console maker has had 2 viable consoles at once, yet you say Nintendo have done so with the Wii U and 3DS. Well if you consider the Wii U and 3DS to be 2 viable consoles then there should be absolutely no question that the PS3 and PSP were as well. So either Sony have done this as well, or the Wii U is not a viable console. Which is it? You also claim Nintendo are the leader because they are the most well run? Being the most well run doesn't make you the leader. Take the example of Tesco in the UK. They have had financial issues recently and there was an article posted here today saying they are closing down over 40 shops, clearly they aren't the most well run business, yet they are definitely the market leader with there marketshare being much larger than anyone elses. |
Like I said in the opening post, this thread covers the entire videogame industry not just Wii U & the 8th Gen race.
It DID originally come out of the UNITY discussion but is not confined to it.
Anyway, in your comparison of Nintendo's software sales to Sony's software sales, you left out the fact that for 4 of those 7 generations (actually 8, really) Nintendo's been making these numbers virtually all by themselves.
Sony has had the ENTIRETY of 3rd party support ever since it entered the videogame market.
100s & 100s of 3rd parties vs. 1 single 1st party & a handful of 2nds since the 5th generation.
And Nintendo STILL has the crown! Sounds like a leader to me.
I don't think Sony could do the same in Nintendo's situation.
And when I showed that Nintendo had the most consoles in the all time best-selling consoles list, it should be obvious that Nintendo tops Sony in consoles sold—even if Sony has the single best-selling console of all time.
Do you REALLY want me to add it up for you? *Sigh* Here we go...
Nintendo Color TV-Game series = about 3 million
Nintendo Game & Watch = over 43 million
Nintendo Entertainment System = almost 62 million
Nintendo Game Boy = almost 119 million
Super Nintendo Entertainment System = over 49 million
Nintendo Virtual Boy = about 770 thousand
Nintendo 64 = almost 33 million
Nintendo Game Boy Advance = almost 82 million
Nintendo Gamecube = almost 22 million
Nintendo DS = almost 155 million
Nintendo Wii = over 101 million
Nintendo 3DS = about 50 million currently
Nintendo Wii U = almost 9 million currently
TOTAL = about 729 million
Sony PlayStation = over 104 million
Sony PlayStation = almost 158 million
Sony PlayStation Portable = almost 81 million
Sony PlayStation 3 = almost 85 million
Sony PlayStation Vita = almost 10 million currently
Sony PlayStation 4 = over 18 million currently
TOTAL = about 456 million
And before you come out with "Well Nintendo had more systems to make those sales"...what's keeping Sony from making those systems?
Unlike Vita, Wii U's got support. Sony CAN'T SUPPORT more than one platform at one time.
That's why Nintendo has that edge. That's why Nintendo's the leader.
And I see what you're trying to do with PSP & PS3 comparing it to Wii U.
Let me explain to you what VIABLE means.
When Wii U flatlined, it cost Nintendo a few dollars.
When PSP & PS3 flatlined, it destroyed Sony Computer Entertainment to the point that parent Sony Corporation had to sell headquarters & other valauble assets just to keep the company afloat.
Unlike Wii U, Vita's dead. Sony can't afford to uphold it thanks to what PSP & PS3 did.
Wii U's not dragging down Nintendo's dollars anymore. And as Nintendo Quarter 2 fiscal 2015 report of ¥24.2 billion ($224 million) profit shows, it's only the beginning. Quarter 3 will be even MORE amazing!
VIABLE in market AND VIABLE in financials. That's what viable means.
I don't know where you come from but there is absolutely NO business that says "it doesn't matter how much money they are making".
It DOES matter. It's one of the CORE things that matter to ANY business.
If you can't profit, then you might as well run a Charity.
Selling millions don't mean a doggone thing if you lose billions to do it.
Running a tight ship financially is how you will ALWAYS remain the leader in any business you're in.
If Tesco keeps squandering their goods like that, they won't be "the leader" for much longer.
Marketshare lead without fiscal lead would be called "The Paper Tiger Effect".
You'll see why this is a horrible spot to be in as the PS4 journeys on in this generation.
Ka-pi96 said:
That's all I need to quote from there. You defeated your own point for me. |
You can try to dismiss what I said about power in console races.
But like I said so many times if power mattered so much, there would BE no consoles to begin with. It would just be PC.
It's not about power with consoles. And it will NEVER be.
That's FACT not FICTION & you'll find this out once again in the 8th gen.
John Lucas
Words from the Official VGChartz Idiot
WE ARE THE NATION...OF DOMINATION!
