• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NPD Sales Results for May 2014 [Up1: Wii U Hardware]

Mpl90

Two copies sold? That's not a bomb guys, stop trolling!!!
Mar 10, 2011
22,885
0
865
29
theflyingthoughtsblog.wordpress.com
16% attach rate for two days in USA.

And NOA reported an 18% attach rate. This is most likely including June 1st and/or digital figures.
So, since MK8 sold 377,000

Wii U LTD up to May - 2,356,250

Correct?

Now, wouldn't the difference in attach rate and mere sales numbers possibly tell us sales for the first days in June? Is that possible?
 

ZSaberLink

Media Create Maven
Jul 29, 2010
4,396
204
1,040
Try not to take the hourly updated Amazon rankings too seriously, as they're calculated goofy as hell and there are a lot of unknowns with the data collected in the rankings.

On the other hand the daily updated yearly top sellers list http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2014/videogames/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsar works just as you think it would.
Mario Kart 8 has been #1 ever since they dropped the price a week back every time I've checked the site (at least twice a day). There's a reason it's been climbing the best sellers list so easily (aka #10 behind Titanfall XB1).
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
Nov 16, 2012
35,973
2
0
Vancouver
Well, Watch_Dogs sold approx. 1.3 million this month.


We have the following SKU percentages:




PS4 + Xbox One SKUs have to be higher than the unbundled Mario Kart 8 numbers (352K).

And we know that Watch_Dogs was nearly 20% of total software units and nearly 30% of total software revenue.

So, we can reasonably estimate individual SKU numbers.

When GAF makes these kind of estimates, they can be quite close to the real figures.
Ooo thank you.
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
your essentially talking about a subscription service with mandatory hardware.. aka cable/satellite. right to the point, the hardware cost isn't low enough to support the current pricing of the subscription model. by comparison by the time DirecTV stopped charging you an "upgrade" fee on a single line hardware costs were approaching $100 (both original non-DVR and years later DVR) on a service that see I believe an average per consumer revenue over over $70/month. Yes there are per customer channel costs to the networks, but likewise PS Plus publishers get paid as well.

Another problem to consider is that by "giving away" the hardware by thus requiring a Plus/Live subscription with games included, you are now likely killing new game sales with the type of audience you are attracting with these systems. So you are giving away $xxx worth of hardware and on return only seeing about $4/month of revenue.


For your proposed free hardware model the monthly revenue would have to go up considerably. Heck Tivo has significantly lower operating costs than SCEI or XBox division, and even they charge $13 per month on top of a $99 subsidized price.
Can you clarify a this for me? I'm not sure how this would kill new game sales? I'd imagine the target demographic for this would be people who didn't own a console before, and therefore wouldn't have bought a game in the first place?
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
That strategy might hold out for the short term but I don't see it as being a viable option for a 4-6 year console span. Or are you implying that they would shorten each cycle?
Possibly! Again, if I had the answers, I'd probably be a multi-millionaire already and not a poster on NeoGAF. My central point is this: I'm emphasizing that "I'm not entirely sure how they could have kept the Wii audience" is a very different thing from "It's not possible to keep the Wii audience."

Similarly, before the Wii existed, I wouldn't have known how to get Grandmas to play consoles in the first place. Now it's obvious, but it sure wasn't before the Wii came about.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
Can you clarify a this for me? I'm not sure how this would kill new game sales? I'd imagine the target demographic for this would be people who didn't own a console before, and therefore wouldn't have bought a game in the first place?
If the deal is good enough (and what you propose would be), everyone will go that way. At that point, you are incentivizing people to go your less profitable way.

Furthermore, the lower the price of your buy in, the greater the number of less invested consumers you have. Think of it like early PC gaming days: people basically expected that software was free because that was what they were used to. How many individual people do you know who ever bought a copy of Photoshop?

Parents love old iPhones because "the games are free". It creates a level of expectation when the buy in is so low and games are coming free consistently. That consumer is perfectly happy with it.

Possibly! Again, if I had the answers, I'd probably be a multi-millionaire already and not a poster on NeoGAF. My central point is this: I'm emphasizing that "I'm not entirely sure how they could have kept the Wii audience" is a very different thing from "It's not possible to keep the Wii audience."

Similarly, before the Wii existed, I wouldn't have known how to get Grandmas to play consoles in the first place. Now it's obvious, but it sure wasn't before the Wii came about.
But that's kind of the point: there's no business plan for obtaining that audience.

There sort of is: innovation, low price point, non-alienating software...but it's not clear cut. Many have tried and lost their shirts. That's why people call the Wii an anomaly. It's not that Nintendo flailed wildly and got lucky. It's that they had a plan and it worked, but many had plans before them and it didn't work.

Apple and Google didn't even try (Apple almost opposed it) and it worked. That's why it's an anomaly: you can't consistently generate success for that market.

I look at it like being a successful singer: you have all the elements, but you can be the best singer in the world and live on food stamps. It's an anomaly to be successful, not a business plan.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
Not everyone wants to set up a PC. Although you do make some good points. Which is why we are seenig sony transition from a platform to a service via ps now.
And I think PSNow is doomed to fail because the competition in this case is F2P games which have microtransactions. Save for Minecraft, every big recent hit has been F2P with microtransactions. This extends from stuff like Dota 2 and TF2 to Candy Crush Saga. Meanwhile a streaming service like PSNow is likely to demand a monthly fee upfront. Why should I pay a monthly fee to stream games when I can play games for free and pay money for stuff I like within the game? Now if PSNow didn't have a monthly fee, then that would be different, but then the question is how Sony makes money without a monthly fee.

People stream content because it is generally more affordable for people to rent their content over buying it. However, in this case, it is actually more affordable to download video games than to stream them because of F2P.
 

mrpeabody

Member
Mar 14, 2005
1,624
21
1,410
I bet Mario Kart will ultimately take a big chunk of those old Wii owners back over time.
Sorry, that audience is gone for structural reasons and no game is going to bring them back. The Wii was a 100m+ system while the Wii U will be lucky to break 20m.

The only way Mario Kart 8 is reaching a "big chunk" of Wii owners is if it comes out on iPad.
 

kiguel182

Member
Sep 9, 2013
13,941
0
0
Possibly! Again, if I had the answers, I'd probably be a multi-millionaire already and not a poster on NeoGAF. My central point is this: I'm emphasizing that "I'm not entirely sure how they could have kept the Wii audience" is a very different thing from "It's not possible to keep the Wii audience."

Similarly, before the Wii existed, I wouldn't have known how to get Grandmas to play consoles in the first place. Now it's obvious, but it sure wasn't before the Wii came about.
I still think Nintendo had the best shot at retaining and expanding their audience if they had launched a cheap new console that iterated over the Wii while keeping the focus on family, fun and offering more media capabilities.

They could've one upped Apple, Google and Amazon when it came to media boxes but Nintendo simply isn't the type of company to do that.
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
If the deal is good enough (and what you propose would be), everyone will go that way. At that point, you are incentivizing people to go your less profitable way.

Furthermore, the lower the price of your buy in, the greater the number of less invested consumers you have. Think of it like early PC gaming days: people basically expected that software was free because that was what they were used to. How many individual people do you know who ever bought a copy of Photoshop?

Parents love old iPhones because "the games are free". It creates a level of expectation when the buy in is so low and games are coming free consistently. That consumer is perfectly happy with it.
I'm talking about doing this with the PS3/Xbox 360. They are well past the point where they are selling like gangbusters and I believe that upfront price is probably the biggest reason behind this.

And I think PSNow is doomed to fail because the competition in this case is F2P games which have microtransactions. Save for Minecraft, every big recent hit has been F2P with microtransactions. This extends from stuff like Dota 2 and TF2 to Candy Crush Saga. Meanwhile a streaming service like PSNow is likely to demand a monthly fee upfront. Why should I pay a monthly fee to stream games when I can play games for free and pay money for stuff I like within the game? Now if PSNow didn't have a monthly fee, then that would be different, but then the question is how Sony makes money without a monthly fee.

People stream content because it is generally more affordable for people to rent their content over buying it. However, in this case, it is actually more affordable to download video games than to stream them because of F2P.
People pay for content if the content is good. Look at netflix for example.
 

Aquamarine

Member
May 24, 2012
18,812
119
780
So, since MK8 sold 377,000

Wii U LTD up to May - 2,356,250

Correct?

Now, wouldn't the difference in attach rate and mere sales numbers possibly tell us sales for the first days in June? Is that possible?
So far for NPD we have:

~377,000 / 2.41 million = 15.64% = 16%


Something like this would give us the sales as of June 1st:

450,000 (given) / 2.45 million = 18.37% = 18%


But the tricky part about using that to gauge June 1st sales is that we don't know if Nintendo's 18% attach rate / 450,000 sales announcement includes digital sales or not.

So it's hard to extrapolate just because of that factor.
 

Mpl90

Two copies sold? That's not a bomb guys, stop trolling!!!
Mar 10, 2011
22,885
0
865
29
theflyingthoughtsblog.wordpress.com
Whenever I see PsNow talk, I always think that it could be great...as a supplementary way of selling games. Given current development costs, it seems impossible to me that publishers would be happy with a infinitesimal cut of a monthly fee (infinitesimal since it should be shared with Sony and all other third parties releasing content) as their main revenue source.

As a selling method which is in conjunction with the traditional market? Fine, if not great. As a method substituting the traditional way? It sounds way too difficult and a big hazard. Also for tech reasons, given how streaming a game isn't exactly like streaming a movie.

It's basically the same as Netflix: it's not the main source revenue for movie makers, but something supplementary to cinema runs and DVD/Blu Rays.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
3
1,575
www.borgh.us
Can you clarify a this for me? I'm not sure how this would kill new game sales? I'd imagine the target demographic for this would be people who didn't own a console before, and therefore wouldn't have bought a game in the first place?
you are giving a console away for free, only requiring a $4/month subscription. The vast majority of people who it would take that sort of barrier of entry (or lack thereof) to participate in gaming will have zero interest in $60 new games, or even $20/30 Greatest Hits titles. More than likely 90%+ of their gaming will be free games from the service and/or heavily discounted used games from Gamestop/ebay/amazon/etc.

Even at $79 retail, by that point in Genesis/SNES/PSX/PS2 eras I would guarantee you those companies were seeing more money on the actual hardware from those sales than licensing residuals.

Historically the sweet spot is $99-179 (I actually believe $129-179). In that range you see the majority of your sales by people buying games at retail. Anything lower than that and you end up mainly targeting people looking for sub-retail priced software.

PSNow in its current form is targeting Redbox/Gamefly.. nothing more. I think the service as has been announced (rental only) is a horrible proposition by Sony, and arguably one of the only bad moves they've made in around 3-4 years (Vita notwithstanding). That being said, I don't think that form is ultimately Sony's goal. I would guess their ultimate goal is to move the service into PS Plus and make THAT service Netflix-like with game streamed instead of downloaded, and possibly even rotated in and out.
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
you are giving a console away for free, only requiring a $4/month subscription. The vast majority of people who it would take that sort of barrier of entry (or lack thereof) to participate in gaming will have zero interest in $60 new games, or even $20/30 Greatest Hits titles. More than likely 90%+ of their gaming will be free games from the service and/or heavily discounted used games from Gamestop/ebay/amazon/etc.

Even at $79 retail, by that point in Genesis/SNES/PSX/PS2 eras I would guarantee you those companies were seeing more money on the actual hardware from those sales than licensing residuals.

Historically the sweet spot is $99-179 (I actually believe $129-179). In that range you see the majority of your sales by people buying games at retail. Anything lower than that and you end up mainly targeting people looking for sub-retail priced software.
I think you misunderstand one thing. I was suggesting giving the console away and charging extra for the PS+/gold sub. Something like 10 bucks a month. The main goal is to lower upfront costs to get more people in the door. This was similar to something the 360 did a while ago.
 

LiveFromKyoto

Member
Jul 19, 2006
25,249
0
0
Kyoto, Japan
The PS1 played music CDs, towards the end of its life the system could also play movies of some format from memory. The idea of consoles being more than just games machines and rather entertainment hubs had begun in earnest already. And the idea that the reason the PS2 managed to sell being because it was a DVD player that also played games, rather than as a game console first and foremost seems somewhat revisionist.
It's not revisionist at all. By the time the PS1 came around, most people had transitioned to CDs, and the system was hardly ideal as a CD player.

But the PS2 hit at a time when a lot of people were looking to get into DVDs but hadn't yet, and something already plugged into your TV made sees for that. TONS of people were, if not buying it primarily as a DVD player, seeing that as a prime incentive when choosing between it and the Dreamcast/Gamecube. (Xbox was still a bit of an unknown for most at that time). I remember this all very clearly, and definitely factored into Sony's decision to piggyback blu ray on the PS3.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
I'm talking about doing this with the PS3/Xbox 360. They are well past the point where they are selling like gangbusters and I believe that upfront price is probably the biggest reason behind this.
My first thought would be to use that deal, sell off the PS3 for $100 and end up with 2 years of "free" PS+ out of the deal.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
It definitely is. I'd also point out that this is a strong argument for reducing power on consoles. I think the Xbox and Wii U could have sold much better if they had reduced their power significantly and sold at $100-150 price points right off the bat.
The Wii U could have easily hit that if they had just not put the stupid gamepad in there.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
3
1,575
www.borgh.us
I think you misunderstand one thing. I was suggesting giving the console away and charging extra for the PS+/gold sub. Something like 10 bucks a month. The main goal is to lower upfront costs to get more people in the door. This was similar to something the 360 did a while ago.
ahh.. fair enough. Still, that's why I included the other examples. Honestly at the level of a game console manufacturer AND publisher.. I really think they'd have to be looking at at least $20/month. Still a value to you and I.. but it turns into less of a no-brainer to those you are suggesting to expand the market with.

Imru’ al-Qays;117017684 said:
The Wii U could have easily hit that if they had just not put the stupid gamepad in there.
This post kind of makes it seem like you don't know much about the Wii U. Even at parity with PS360 (which it's not, between flash and RAM size, etc) those consoles are still $200 each now, and were $250 each shortly before Wii U released. Realistically just removing the gamepad and not selling at a loss Wii U would have been at minimum $299 (new hardware R&D, slightly higher BOM, +margin). $249 would have probably been break even or a slight loss.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
People pay for content if the content is good. Look at netflix for example.
Netflix is $10 a month to stream video content. Compared to buying video content either at retail or digitally, $10 is the price of two bargain-bin DVDs or one digital movie. If you watch more than one movie or show a month, Netflix is a damn great deal compared to either buying content or especially getting cable. You know what is even more popular video streaming website? YouTube, the one who streams video content for free.

If you want to know where consumers will generally go for their content, locate the cheapest option out of all options. In most cases, that is streaming, but in the case of video games, that is F2P.
 

gundamkyoukai

Member
Aug 30, 2009
16,960
123
830
Possibly! Again, if I had the answers, I'd probably be a multi-millionaire already and not a poster on NeoGAF. My central point is this: I'm emphasizing that "I'm not entirely sure how they could have kept the Wii audience" is a very different thing from "It's not possible to keep the Wii audience."

Similarly, before the Wii existed, I wouldn't have known how to get Grandmas to play consoles in the first place. Now it's obvious, but it sure wasn't before the Wii came about.
Now grandma has a smartphone or tables she can play games on and don't need to buy something else since consoles never matter to here or certain type of games.
It's like cameras there is nothing they can do to stop losing market share on certain types since smartphones good enough for most people .
 

ZSaberLink

Media Create Maven
Jul 29, 2010
4,396
204
1,040
really wish we could get individual sku numbers for Watch Dogs.
We already did. Look for posts by SwiftDeath.

Iirc,

WD PS4 ~ 600K
WD XB1 ~ 370K (a bit above MK8's 2 days)

I don't remember the 360/PS3 numbers, but I think they were in the 100Ks

So Mario kart sold 300,000 plus copies. Isn't that bad? Even Wii u owners aren't buying games.
No, that's actually very good for 2 days of sales on that install base.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
The very first thing I'd think of is to make significantly less powerful systems they could sell in the $100-150 range. I'd recommend going fully digital and reducing the prices of games notably. I'd recommend a strong network infrastructure.

Beyond that, I have no specific recommendations. If I knew, I'd be making millions instead of posting on NeoGAF. I just think it's reasonable to assume something could be done. We've already proven that these people will indeed buy consoles, and that they will buy them in very large numbers; I propose that the unreasonable position is to argue that they would never buy a console, when we already have empirical evidence that they will.
Microsoft and Sony couldn't have reasonably done that - it would mean sacrificing the core gamer market, which they understand, in the hopes of making money off the Wii's vanished blue ocean.

The problem is that it's hard to make a console that appeals to both the core and the "others." The PS2 was able to do it because back then the non-core didn't really have anywhere else to go. The Wii wasn't really able to do it, though I suppose it was in the ballpark. But you can't have a $150 game machine that will satisfy your core demographic or a $400 game machine that will tempt grandma.
 

Jaxyfoo

Banned
Feb 18, 2014
26
0
0
UK
Sorry, that audience is gone for structural reasons and no game is going to bring them back. The Wii was a 100m+ system while the Wii U will be lucky to break 20m.

The only way Mario Kart 8 is reaching a "big chunk" of Wii owners is if it comes out on iPad.
I can only use anecdotal evidence as cross referance. But I have 2 brothers and 3 sisters. Of which all 6 of us had a Wii. I have a PS4, and my youngest brother has an XB1. Of the rest they have moved on to Ipads and phones full stop. However my Nephews and Nieces all love Playroom, the Lego games, Rayman and many of the games that most gamers would turn their nose up at. So as it stands I will have a family of 5 PS4 owners and one XB1 owner come xmas. I bet this is a similar story for many families. People grow out of gaming all the time, but new kids will always be there to drag them back.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
Now grandma has a smartphone she can play games on and don't need to buy something else since consoles never matter to here or certain type of games.
It's like cameras there is nothing they can do to stop losing market share on certain types since smartphones good enough for most people .
Yes, there is something they could have done. They just didn't do it. Again, I am amused by the notion that the console industry simply cannot be changed, that it must continue down the path its on, and that absolutely nothing can be done to recapture lost audiences.

That doesn't mean it would have been easy, and clearly what was tried didn't work. But losing these audiences to mobile is a very big deal, as they are simultaneously the largest, fastest growing, and most profitable audience available. Throwing up your hands and saying "welp nothing can be done I guess they're gone forever" is not a position I suggest you (and more importantly, the manufacturers) take lightly.
 

ZSaberLink

Media Create Maven
Jul 29, 2010
4,396
204
1,040
So far for NPD we have:

~377,000 / 2.41 million = 15.64% = 16%


Something like this would give us the sales as of June 1st:

450,000 (given) / 2.45 million = 18.37% = 18%


But the tricky part about using that to gauge June 1st sales is that we don't know if Nintendo's 18% attach rate / 450,000 sales announcement includes digital sales or not.

So it's hard to extrapolate just because of that factor.
So by that logic, MK8 sold 40K more units in 1 day? That would be pretty good for a single day right?
 

gundamkyoukai

Member
Aug 30, 2009
16,960
123
830
Yes, there is something they could have done. They just didn't do it. Again, I am amused by the notion that the console industry simply cannot be changed, that it must continue down the path its on, and that absolutely nothing can be done to recapture lost audiences -- audiences which are still growing and are highly profitable in aggregate, I might add.

That doesn't mean it would have been easy, and clearly what was tried didn't work. But losing these audiences to mobile is a very big deal, as they are simultaneously the largest and most profitable audience available. Throwing up your hands and saying "welp nothing can be done I guess they're gone forever" is not a position I suggest you (and more importantly, the manufacturers) take lightly.
Saying there is something they could do without saying anything don't meaning much .
Your idea to bring out a $100 to $150 consoles would kill there market since none of the other cheap consoles have sold anything .
Why would anyone upgrade to them , Sony is trying other stuff with there streaming service .
 

Tigress

Member
Dec 2, 2013
7,185
0
390
Apple and Google didn't even try (Apple almost opposed it) and it worked. That's why it's an anomaly: you can't consistently generate success for that market.
Almost? I'd say outright. Jobs I know specifically was against it on the Mac as he didn't want the Mac to look like a toy (don't even get me started). Games got popular in spite of Apple.... and Apple/Jobs finally caved cause they couldn't refuse the money. That still didn't convince them to make Mac game friendly.

(I say this as some one who likes her Mac but that is a pet peeve of mine).
 

Mpl90

Two copies sold? That's not a bomb guys, stop trolling!!!
Mar 10, 2011
22,885
0
865
29
theflyingthoughtsblog.wordpress.com
it's been a minute since the 7 million announcement when will the 10 million one happen (after) Destiny? or new CoD release?
PS4 WW LTD - 7 millions as of April 6th, 2014

Since then

USA
April - 200,000
May - 197,000

Total - 397,000

Japan (MC)
April - 51,628
May - 29,323

Total - 80,951

US + Japan total - 477,951

Sales needed to reach 8 millions - 522,049
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
Saying there is something they could do without saying anything don't meaning much .
Your idea to bring out a $100 to $150 consoles would kill there market since none of the other cheap consoles have sold anything .
Doing that with the previous gen would make more sense. PS3 selling for 299 is just ridiculous.
 

S¡mon

Banned
May 13, 2013
1,786
0
0
Updated Summary with Shinra's splits for consoles

PS4 ~ 194k
3DS ~ 87k
XB1 ~ 76k
Wii U ~ 60k
360 ~ 57k
PSV ~ 56k
PS3 ~ 36k
Wii ~ 11k
Based on these numbers, I did pretty well:

[PS4] 219K 194K / 25K difference (ouch!)
[XB1] 78K 76K / 2K difference (nice!)
[3DS] 92K 87K / 5K difference (mmh...)
[360] 74K 57K / 17K difference (ouch!)
[WIU] 60K 60K / spot on, hooray
[PS3] 35K 36K / 1K difference (very nice!)
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
Imru’ al-Qays;117018620 said:
Microsoft and Sony couldn't have reasonably done that - it would mean sacrificing the core gamer market, which they understand, in the hopes of making money off the Wii's vanished blue ocean.

The problem is that it's hard to make a console that appeals to both the core and the "others." The PS2 was able to do it because back then the non-core didn't really have anywhere else to go. The Wii wasn't really able to do it, though I suppose it was in the ballpark. But you can't have a $150 game machine that will satisfy your core demographic or a $400 game machine that will tempt grandma.
I definitely agree, it's hard to make a single platform that appeals to both right now. Part of my alarm, here, is that I don't think most "core" gamers are thinking this through all the way.

Back in the PS2 days, as the casual audience was just taking off, "hardcore" gamers had most of the bargaining power in the marketplace. Casual users were basically relegated to the Playstation 2, a system focused primarily on "core" gamers but which had some games for casual users to buy in its later years.

As time has gone on, however, the casual audience has grown. And grown. And become more and more profitable. The casual-focused platforms are growing and growing in turn, while consoles contract and stagnate. I think it would have been better for "hardcore" gamers to accept some sort of reasonable compromise some time ago. As time goes on, the realities of the battlefield are increasingly favoring the casual gamers and the platforms they frequent.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
3
1,575
www.borgh.us
Yes, there is something they could have done. They just didn't do it. Again, I am amused by the notion that the console industry simply cannot be changed, that it must continue down the path its on, and that absolutely nothing can be done to recapture lost audiences -- audiences which are still growing and are highly profitable in aggregate, I might add.

That doesn't mean it would have been easy, and clearly what was tried didn't work. But losing these audiences to mobile is a very big deal, as they are simultaneously the largest and most profitable audience available. Throwing up your hands and saying "welp nothing can be done I guess they're gone forever" is not a position I suggest you (and more importantly, the manufacturers) take lightly.
ahhhhhhh... I see where you are going with this. ok.

because you can't plan for a bubble. you just can't. It seems you don't agree with this, but I've simply way too many bubble markets materialize out of nothing, NOTHING, to ever believe that you can plan for it.

You've commented that Nintendo "planned for casuals" with Wii, and you are right. Absolutely. What wasn't planned..... was that it worked! Wii Sports in retrospect was beautiful and brilliant. Wii and Wii Sports circa E3s 2005 and 2006 was a big "omfg wtf!? Nintendo is done. They are fucking clueless."

So you know, I'll agree with you on one point. Companies can certainly continue to TRY to get that market back. Sure. But there is no panacea for it, and it can be argued at this point in the changing market that that development money is better spent on stablizing the market as opposed to chasing an audience that may come back next year, in 10 years, or never again in the foreseeable future. After the market is stabilized? Sure baby steps. But when we are seeing consoles launching (all three) and not seeing any real notable titles for the consoles until 16-24 months AFTER THE LAUNCH!!!! that's a problem. spend money to fix that, not to chase an audience that's a dice roll as to if they are even coming back or not.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
Almost? I'd say outright. Jobs I know specifically was against it on the Mac as he didn't want the Mac to look like a toy (don't even get me started). Games got popular in spite of Apple.... and Apple/Jobs finally caved cause they couldn't refuse the money. That still didn't convince them to make Mac game friendly.

(I say this as some one who likes her Mac but that is a pet peeve of mine).
I'm only referring to their mobile market.

Being actually opposed to it would have been blocking anything not deemed productivity software from being signed code. That would have been opposed to it. As it was, they just let whatever on, including games, as far back as the click-wheel iPods.

I definitely agree, it's hard to make a single platform that appeals to both right now. Part of my alarm, here, is that I don't think most "core" gamers are thinking this through all the way.

Back in the PS2 days, as the casual audience was just taking off, "hardcore" gamers had most of the bargaining power in the marketplace. Casual users were basically relegated to the Playstation 2, a system focused primarily on "core" gamers but which had some games for casual users to buy in its later years.

As time has gone on, however, the casual audience has grown. And grown. And become more and more profitable. The casual-focused platforms are growing and growing in turn, while consoles contract and stagnate. I think it would have been better for "hardcore" gamers to accept some sort of reasonable compromise some time ago. As time goes on, the realities of the battlefield are increasingly favoring the casual gamers and the platforms they frequent.
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't the "casual" software of the PS2 heavily overlapped with the "core" software? I was always under the impression that Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Eyetoy games, and in all actuality, GTA games were the primary casual drivers. All of those (with maybe the exception of Eyetoy games) would be classified as core games these days.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
ahhhhhhh... I see where you are going with this. ok.

because you can't plan for a bubble. you just can't. It seems you don't agree with this, but I've simply way too many bubble markets materialize out of nothing, NOTHING, to ever believe that you can plan for it.
This isn't a bubble market though. It's still around, and still growing, and still very profitable in aggregate. It just isn't focused on consoles any more.

You've commented that Nintendo "planned for casuals" with Wii, and you are right. Absolutely. What wasn't planned..... was that it worked! Wii Sports in retrospect was beautiful and brilliant. Wii and Wii Sports circa E3s 2005 and 2006 was a big "omfg wtf!? Nintendo is done. They are fucking clueless."

So you know, I'll agree with you on one point. Companies can certainly continue to TRY to get that market back. Sure. But there is no panacea for it, and it can be argued at this point in the changing market that that development money is better spent on stablizing the market as opposed to chasing an audience that may come back next year, in 10 years, or never again in the foreseeable future. After the market is stabilized? Sure baby steps. But when we are seeing consoles launching (all three) and not seeing any real notable titles for the consoles until 16-24 months AFTER THE LAUNCH!!!! that's a problem. spend money to fix that, not to chase an audience that's a dice roll as to if they are even coming back or not.
I definitely agree with this. A casual success for a console today would definitely be difficult, and very hard to predict. This is one of the reasons why Sony and Microsoft like "hardcore" gamers so much; while they aren't very profitable these days, they are extremely predictable, and much easier to plan for in a large scale operation like a home console.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
I could be wrong on this, but wasn't the "casual" software of the PS2 heavily overlapped with the "core" software? I was always under the impression that Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Eyetoy games, and in all actuality, GTA games were the primary casual drivers. All of those (with maybe the exception of Eyetoy games) would be classified as core games these days.
GTA is definitely classified as "core" today, but I don't think Eyetoy and Guitar Hero would be. But you're right, these definitions are unreasonably fluid. Most people just use them to suit their particular argument at the particular time.
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
This isn't a bubble market though. It's still around, and still growing, and still very profitable in aggregate. It just isn't focused on consoles any more.



I definitely agree with this. A casual success for a console today would definitely be difficult, and very hard to predict. This is one of the reasons why Sony and Microsoft like "hardcore" gamers so much; while they aren't very profitable these days, they are extremely predictable, and much easier to plan for in a large scale operation like a home console.
What's your opinion on VR being the next "blue ocean"? I could see it appealing to non gamers, although price of entry could be an issue.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
GTA is definitely classified as "core" today, but I don't think Eyetoy and Guitar Hero would be. But you're right, these definitions are unreasonably fluid. Most people just use them to suit their particular argument at the particular time.
But that's what you're doing too! :p

Saying Sony and MS haven't done enough to grab casual users but then admitting that games for casual users are as wide a definition as any (including alienating software like GTA).

I guess in a nutshell, it could be boiled down to continuing to try new things when the old things aren't working (or working as well). But then again, doubling down on FPS sequels in 2007 (after 15 years of FPSs) worked out pretty well for a bunch of companies too. I guess that's why pointing fingers at who is doing things wrong is kind of tough.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
What's your opinion on VR being the next "blue ocean"? I could see it appealing to non gamers, although price of entry could be an issue.
It's possible. It could also prove to be incredibly hardcore focused with a very narrow appeal.

Like almost everyone else, I'm much better at post-facto analysis than I am at pre-facto. I try to be as realistic as possible with the limits of my capabilities.

If you want something more than that: I think if VR does find some mainstream appeal, it will be through some application Facebook (or someone else) dreams up, and not through the primary focus of Occulus or Morpheus. Not that those applications can't reach gamers, but to really explode someone's going to have to hit it big with something like virtual tourism.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
I definitely agree, it's hard to make a single platform that appeals to both right now. Part of my alarm, here, is that I don't think most "core" gamers are thinking this through all the way.

Back in the PS2 days, as the casual audience was just taking off, "hardcore" gamers had most of the bargaining power in the marketplace. Casual users were basically relegated to the Playstation 2, a system focused primarily on "core" gamers but which had some games for casual users to buy in its later years.

As time has gone on, however, the casual audience has grown. And grown. And become more and more profitable. The casual-focused platforms are growing and growing in turn, while consoles contract and stagnate. I think it would have been better for "hardcore" gamers to accept some sort of reasonable compromise some time ago. As time goes on, the realities of the battlefield are increasingly favoring the casual gamers and the platforms they frequent.
Except what's happening isn't so much that casuals are taking over the market for games, it's just that the market is bifurcating and specializing. The home console market is mature and stable at this point, the casual market is wide open and chaotic. That doesn't mean that the big players in the home console market would be better off sacrificing their core marketshare to try to make inroads in the casual market, which is basically what you suggest (since the console-maker that unilaterally disarmed on graphics to hit a lower price point would have its lunch eaten by the other one among the core).

The casual market has its own platform holders, and they're formidable. It would be like BMW deciding it could make more money by selling mass-market cars instead of niche luxury cars: ideally it could, but in practice it would probably mean alienating its luxury-car consumerbase while simultaneously getting outcompeted by companies with a lot more expertise in the mass-market car market (Mercedes tried this when they bought Chrysler, in fact, and it didn't work so well). BMW has historically decided that the way to conduct its business is just to pay careful attention to its core demographic, and to try to broaden that core demographic bit by bit. That's basically Sony's strategy this console generation. We'll see how well it works, I guess, but right now it seems to be working the best.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
But that's what you're doing too! :p
Absolutely! That was intended as self criticism.

Saying Sony and MS haven't done enough to grab casual users but then admitting that games for casual users are as wide a definition as any (including alienating software like GTA).
If you want me to be more specific, I can be: gamers outside the 16-35 male demographic. That's my preferred terminology, but most people tend to operate on the casual/hardcore definitional spectrum. It's also why I tend to put the term "hardcore" in quotation marks.

I guess in a nutshell, it could be boiled down to continuing to try new things when the old things aren't working (or working as well). But then again, doubling down on FPS sequels in 2007 (after 15 years of FPSs) worked out pretty well for a bunch of companies too. I guess that's why pointing fingers at who is doing things wrong is kind of tough.
I would say that doubling down on FPS works out very well for a select few people, and very badly for everyone else. In aggregate, the effect on the market is probably negative. Similarly, GTA doing incredibly well is really, really good for Rockstar, but might be bad other designers who can't possibly ape GTA's production value (and production cost). You'd have to do some more thorough analysis to figure out if it's good or bad for consoles in aggregate.
 

Lady Gaia

Member
Aug 6, 2013
2,450
0
410
California
I'm delighted to see Nintendo continue to plug away at the challenge of building a positive brand for the Wii U. They missed the mark with the game pad, somehow ignoring the inevitable success of the general tablet market at their expense. The Wii succeeded by being a novel form of entertainment in much the same way as DDR or Rock Band, and not being able to capture lightning in a bottle on demand is pretty much predictable. They'll have to slog their way through this generation on the strength of software alone.

Again, if I had the answers, I'd probably be a multi-millionaire already and not a poster on NeoGAF.
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?
 

SwiftDeath

Member
May 31, 2013
23,627
0
0
For a final-esque summary

-----------------------------
Hardware Monthly Sales
-----------------------------
PS4 ~ 197k
3DS ~ 97k
XB1 ~ 77k
Wii U ~ 61k
360 ~ 57k
PSV ~ 56k
PS3 ~ 36k
Wii ~ 11k
-----------------------------
Hardware US LTD's as of May 31st, 2014
-----------------------------
PS4 ~ 3308k
XB1 ~ 2741k
WIU ~ 2408k
-----------------------------
Tie Ratios through May 2014

XB1 ~ 3.18
PS4 ~ 2.62
-----------------------------
Mario Kart 8 ~ 377k, 6.6% from bundles
-----------------------------
Watch Dogs Sales Breakdown

PS4 ~ 46% -> ~ 575k
XB1 ~ 29% -> ~ 362.5k
360 ~ 14% -> ~ 175k
PS3 ~ 11% -> ~ 137.5k

Total > 1.25M
-----------------------------
Minecraft PS3 89k
-----------------------------
Wolfenstein New Order

PS4 ~ 41%
XB1 ~ 38%
360 ~ 13%
PS3 ~ 8%
-----------------------------
BL2 Vita Standalone ~27k
-----------------------------
LTD's

DKC: Tropical Freeze [WiU] 258k
Lightening Returns FF [PS3] 135k [360] 71k
PVZ: Garden Warfare [XB1] 257k [360] 150k
FF10HD [PS3] 259k [Vita] ~75k
South Park SoT [360] 279k [PS3] 228k
Titanfall [XB1] 969k [360] 559k Note: Does not include bundled sales
Dark Souls 2 [360] 212k [PS3] 209k
Infamous SS [PS4] 617k
MGSV: Ground Zeroes [Total] 357k [PS4] >179k
SM3DW [WiU] ~770k

Bravely Default [3DS] ~258k
Yoshi's New Island [3DS] ~256k
Kirby Triple Deluxe [3DS] ~138k
-----------------------------

I may add somethings after checking with some people if its okay
 

Tigress

Member
Dec 2, 2013
7,185
0
390
I'm only referring to their mobile market.

Being actually opposed to it would have been blocking anything not deemed productivity software from being signed code. That would have been opposed to it. As it was, they just let whatever on, including games, as far back as the click-wheel iPods.
Jobs didn't even do that with Mac though, he just didn't do anything to make the OS friendly towards games (it still isn't and you in general need more tech specs for the same game on mac as you do for PC and from what I understand it's cause they can't optomize as well on Mac due to OS not being friendly towards it). You still could find games for it (Hell, Microsoft even made Flight Simulator for it and I know I played AD&D pool of radiance on mine as well as Test Drive II. I grew up with macs and I still found some games for it).

But, I'm pretty sure he retorted to some one that he didn't want Mac to be a games machine. He probably didn't outright ban it cuase, well, money but he certainly tried to dissuade it or at least try to keep up the image that mac was for productivity (so that gamers go elsewhere).

I'm pretty sure since iphone was under him as well he probably felt the same way there. Just I guess it wasn't as hard to bring games over so they happened anyways cause the audience was there and Apple eventually had to cave in that it made money. Notice their biggest leaps in gaming happened after Jobs passed away (we finally get a standardized API for add on controllers for example).

Granted I don't know Jobs, just everything I've heard and judging from Apple's actions (specially before and after Jobs was gone), I really get the impression he kinda had a disdain for games on computers. And there's no denying that when he was with Apple he had a pretty strong hold on their direction.
 

SDCowboy

Member
Feb 23, 2014
9,157
63
0
For a final-esque summary

-----------------------------
Hardware Monthly Sales
-----------------------------
PS4 ~ 197k
3DS ~ 97k
XB1 ~ 77k
Wii U ~ 61k
360 ~ 57k
PSV ~ 56k
PS3 ~ 36k
Wii ~ 11k
Where did we get the PS4 and X1 numbers? How did PS4 sell the same or less than in April?
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
Imru’ al-Qays;117023453 said:
Except what's happening isn't so much that casuals are taking over the market for games, it's just that the market is bifurcating and specializing. The home console market is mature and stable at this point, the casual market is wide open and chaotic. That doesn't mean that the big players in the home console market would be better off sacrificing their core marketshare to try to make inroads in the casual market, which is basically what you suggest (since the console-maker that unilaterally disarmed on graphics to hit a lower price point would have its lunch eaten by the other one among the core).
For the most part, agreed, for now. Historically, though, the profitable, growing parts of a market tend to gradually eat the contracting, less profitable market segment's lunch. The casual platforms are clearly already doing that to portable systems; they are also already doing it to home consoles, unless you redefine home console to be "only things which are basically like the Playstation."
 

gundamkyoukai

Member
Aug 30, 2009
16,960
123
830
For the most part, agreed, for now. Historically, though, the profitable, growing parts of a market tend to gradually eat the contracting, less profitable market segment's lunch. The casual platforms are clearly already doing that to portable systems; they are also already doing it to home consoles, unless you redefine home console to be "only things which are basically like the Playstation."
This will happen when tech gets better and at that time game pubs won't have to sacrifice either part of the market .
I say in about 10 years or so .