• 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]

mightynine

Member
Jun 8, 2004
14,280
0
0
41
Looseyana
mightynine.blogspot.com
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.
No one asked me, but I think as long as VR looks like a gigantic thing strapped to your head, it's not going to get into the mainstream.

I remember in the 90s when it was going to be the next big thing, it was popping up in arcades - and then, poof ,gone.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
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."
I think that's as likely an outcome at any: Google and Apple get good enough at catering to core gamers that they kill the home console. But it's just as likely to me that that never happens: the home console lives on as a quite sizable and reasonably stable and profitable chunk of the gaming market that Google and Apple (etc) are unable or unwilling to crack. Maybe over many decades the size of this market relative to the overall population slowly dwindles, as console gaming becomes less of a cultural touchstone for young boys. But that's hardly a sure thing, and one can envision all sorts of other ways that could shake out.
 

lightning2k3

Member
Feb 7, 2013
1,279
0
0
No one asked me, but I think as long as VR looks like a gigantic thing strapped to your head, it's not going to get into the mainstream.

I remember in the 90s when it was going to be the next big thing, it was popping up in arcades - and then, poof ,gone.
I've talked to some people who have tried the Rift, and they have spoken nothing but good things about how real it feels. I really think that VR could be the next revolution, not just in gaming, but in terms of displays in general. When that revolution will come though, I am not sure.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
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 prefer to think of the core market (and I use core instead of "hardcore" specifically as I don't believe it has to do with extremism or amount of time played or complexity or anything like that) as the repeatable market. The market that will show up for quality or innovation. The ones that do not need to be turned on to new selections as they are either aware of them already or are actively seeking them out.

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.
I disagree with a couple of things here. I don't believe GTA succeeds on production value; GTA3 was ugly as sin for its time but it offered a genuinely new experience (even Miyamoto praised GTA3 for succeeding while not pushing graphical fidelity) and became a zeitgeist in itself. GTA is the Nintendo of its select brand of gaming and I think that a GTA6 with PS3 level graphics in 2017 would sell gangbusters. The market for GTA doesn't care about GTA competitors the same way the Madden market doesn't care about Backbreaker possibly being a better American football game.

On FPS games, doubling down on them in 2007 created innovations that exploded the market. I honestly doubt there would have been 70M PS3s and 70M 360s without CoD4 (for better or worse). The networking effect and incentivizing multiplayer with individual consoles per player I think is an under-reported/discussed positive pressure on console sales, and in turn, additional software sales. And that came from hammering the same old genre.
 

mightynine

Member
Jun 8, 2004
14,280
0
0
41
Looseyana
mightynine.blogspot.com
I've talked to some people who have tried the Rift, and they have spoken nothing but good things about how real it feels. I really think that VR could be the next revolution, not just in gaming, but in terms of displays in general. When that revolution will come though, I am not sure.
My point isn't about how real it feels, it's trying to convince someone to put the thing on. That will be it's biggest hurdle.
 

Oni Jazar

Member
Jun 14, 2004
10,448
1
1,515
41
Fort Lauderdale
No one asked me, but I think as long as VR looks like a gigantic thing strapped to your head, it's not going to get into the mainstream.

I remember in the 90s when it was going to be the next big thing, it was popping up in arcades - and then, poof ,gone.
Agreed. No matter how amazing it is there's no way it will be accepted. I'm dying to try it but even I don't want to be shut out of the world.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
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.
I think we actually completely agree with each other and are both getting too caught up in semantics.

I used the phrase "almost opposed" to describe what you outlined here: that they didn't do anything to help games (but didn't do anything specifically to block them) because they had no interest in pursuing that avenue. I only wanted to clarify that they didn't actually oppose games, because there is a hypothetical scorched earth scenario where they would actively block games from coming on their devices.

Essentially: I agree with you and was being stupidly pedantic with my second comment. My apologies.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
I prefer to think of the core market (and I use core instead of "hardcore" specifically as I don't believe it has to do with extremism or amount of time played or complexity or anything like that) as the repeatable market. The market that will show up for quality or innovation. The ones that do not need to be turned on to new selections as they are either aware of them already or are actively seeking them out.
I don't think this will follow long term. The lack of predictability of the "casual" market is mostly a consequence of their newness.

In the late 70s / early 80s, as today's "core" market was just being formed, we also saw a lot of churn and a huge amount of unpredictability. Companies like Collecovision, Intellivision, Sears, and of course Atari rose swiftly and then collapsed in to nothingness. As time has gone on, however, companies have figured out what people want and the market has become more solid and more predictable. Churn slowed. Sega was the last real victim, and since that point we've had the same 3 major competitors for nearly 15 years. The market is now highly predictable and very solidified.

Most markets start out this way. The market for soda was not always just Coke and Pepsi; it gradually solidified around them over the course of decades. We can see the market for Android phones gradually consolidating around winners (especially Samsung) right now.

On FPS games, doubling down on them in 2007 created innovations that exploded the market. I honestly doubt there would have been 70M PS3s and 70M 360s without CoD4 (for better or worse). The networking effect and incentivizing multiplayer with individual consoles per player I think is an under-reported/discussed positive pressure on console sales, and in turn, additional software sales. And that came from hammering the same old genre.
I think you're more in tune with innovations inside genres you already like or are already familiar with. The differences seem particularly pronounced and important to you, similar to how small changes in the sound of a band may seem like a huge departure for a fan of the band but may sound identical to someone who isn't.

That doesn't mean that the genre didn't change at all, mind you. It did. I'm only examining the long term economic trends here.
 

Tookay

Member
Oct 26, 2011
9,987
0
0
No one asked me, but I think as long as VR looks like a gigantic thing strapped to your head, it's not going to get into the mainstream.

I remember in the 90s when it was going to be the next big thing, it was popping up in arcades - and then, poof ,gone.
Yeah.

Until we get it into the size of a pair of glasses or a contact lens, I don't think it's really going to take the world by storm.
 

mrpeabody

Member
Mar 14, 2005
1,624
21
1,410
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.
Your anecdotal evidence agrees with the sales data: Most Wii owners are not buying the Wii U.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
I don't think this will follow long term. The lack of predictability of the "casual" market is mostly a consequence of their newness.

In the late 70s / early 80s, as today's "core" market was just being formed, we also saw a lot of churn and a huge amount of unpredictability. Companies like Collecovision, Intellivision, Sears, and of course Atari rose swiftly and then collapsed in to nothingness. As time has gone on, however, companies have figured out what people want and the market has become more solid and more predictable. Churn slowed. Sega was the last real victim, and since that point we've had the same 3 major competitors for nearly 15 years. The market is now highly predictable and very solidified.

Most markets start out this way. The market for soda was not always just Coke and Pepsi; it gradually solidified around them over the course of decades. We can see the market for Android phones gradually consolidating around winners (especially Samsung) right now.
"Core" and "casual" are descriptive, not prescriptive terms to me. Grandma playing Crusader Kings 2 doesn't make CK2 a casual game nor does it make Grandma a core player. Grandma seeing a game about kings and maps and buying a PC to play it, then never really playing any other games for seven years makes Grandma a part of the casual market. The same result would apply to the 23 year old super nerd who listens to Dream Theater and has the same player/buyer patterns.

The console market in the early 80s waned but the PC market was fine. The core players went where the games were. They were repeatable, even then, only smaller due to awareness (you can't know if you want to keep playing games if you've never played a game before).


I think you're more in tune with innovations inside genres you already like or are already familiar with. The differences seem particularly pronounced and important to you, similar to how small changes in the sound of a band may seem like a huge departure for a fan of the band but may sound identical to someone who isn't.

That doesn't mean that the genre didn't change at all, mind you. It did. I'm only examining the long term economic trends here.
I'm going to assume you mean "one is more in tune with" rather than directly me, as I don't think I've ever played a CoD in my life.

The differences are irrelevant, I'm only looking descriptively at the results: CoD4 had something in it (whether it was innovative content, a level of polish, subject material, whatever) that became a flashpoint for growth. That growth was in a well established genre that consistently sold well before, but became a zeitgeist with this particular installment.

I'm just pointing to the idea that saying you need to branch out from a particular genre set to create growth has had exceptions in the past (in 2007 alone, there were multiple super successful FPSs).
 

Yoda

Member
Jun 17, 2011
3,701
762
825
A couple million?! You're talking about a new market that's made up of 20% of the world's population in one country with a diverse and growing middle class. I think a couple million is a ridiculously low expectation LTD.

If 5% of China's population buys a console, that's 65 million units. We'll obviously revisit this when both products launch properly there.
I keep seeing people mention China but I don't think you understand it isn't the same kind of consumer minded middle class America has. Even if you ignore economic realities such as per-capita GDP (approx. $50,000 in the USA vs approx $8,000 in China), people there don't have the same respect for intellectual property that the U.S. does. There is also a much bigger focus on F2P/PC games. The run of the mill AAA CoD/AC will never convince them to buy hardware with its current offering.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
"Core" and "casual" are descriptive, not prescriptive terms to me. Grandma playing Crusader Kings 2 doesn't make CK2 a casual game nor does it make Grandma a core player. Grandma seeing a game about kings and maps and buying a PC to play it, then never really playing any other games for seven years makes Grandma a part of the casual market. The same result would apply to the 23 year old super nerd who listens to Dream Theater and has the same player/buyer patterns.

The console market in the early 80s waned but the PC market was fine. The core players went where the games were. They were repeatable, even then, only smaller due to awareness (you can't know if you want to keep playing games if you've never played a game before).
No, they were not. This is like saying that "casual" gamers are predictable today, they just moved from Wii to iOS. They still have similar buying patterns, they just moved platforms! If your point is that "hardcore" software has always been the same, then I'd point out huge swathes of "hardcore" software developers rose and collapsed early, too; now we're down to four steady, consistent winners in the west. EA/Ubisoft/Take 2/Activision have now dominated the Western market for nearly a decade with only marginal perturbations.

This is not specific to gaming, again. This is the consistent pattern of markets in a free economy. Further, profitability tends to decrease as predictability increases. "Hardcore" markets are now highly predictable and very resistant to change.

I'm going to assume you mean "one is more in tune with" rather than directly me, as I don't think I've ever played a CoD in my life.
Correct. Nor have I.

The differences are irrelevant, I'm only looking descriptively at the results: CoD4 had something in it (whether it was innovative content, a level of polish, subject material, whatever) that became a flashpoint for growth. That growth was in a well established genre that consistently sold well before, but became a zeitgeist with this particular installment.

I'm just pointing to the idea that saying you need to branch out from a particular genre set to create growth has had exceptions in the past (in 2007 alone, there were multiple super successful FPSs).
Yes, CoD4 was clearly the single best example of major explosive growth in the "hardcore" gaming sphere this generation. In the past, there were more -- PS1/PS2 presided over the rise of entirely new genres like Sandbox, minigame/party game collections, and Survival Horror, for example -- but there is at least still some innovation going on "hardcore" consoles. Much less than in the past, but still some.
 

Orthogonal

Member
Nov 17, 2013
9,522
0
370
What could possibly explain this?

Can we blame the boxart?
Terrible boxart and I wouldn't be surprised if it is a factor, although you have to consider that the 360 install base dwarfs the PS3 in the US. It was available digitally for a while before the physical release, I imagine that drew in a lot of the initial sales. It's also a game that is so widespread there just aren't that many folks who have only a PS3 and never played the game or don't have a copy. Minecraft has huge legs and word of mouth will get it to stabilize and possibly grow a bit.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
No, they were not. This is like saying that "casual" gamers are predictable today, they just moved from Wii to iOS. They still have similar buying patterns, the just moved platforms.
At this point, this conversation has gone on long enough that I may have lost the plot somewhere...wasn't it you that implied that modern casual gamers are (reasonably) predictable and that Sony and MS have done nothing to attract that market?

I think the general pushback against casual gamers is that they are "fickle", success with them is/was a "fluke", and that going after them is extremely risky.

But here you seem to be implying that they are exactly that, unpredictable.

So what is your stance on the matter?
 

Jaxyfoo

Banned
Feb 18, 2014
26
0
0
UK
Your anecdotal evidence agrees with the sales data: Most Wii owners are not buying the Wii U.
Fair play i can't argue with that conclusion. In fact I would own a Wii U with absolutely no doubt if I didn't own a Wii. Something about the console just sticks in the throat after owning everything from a Nes to a Wii. Now there are things that Microsoft could do to make me own both, but I can't see myself owning a Nintendo machine again unless their next console destroys the PS4/XB1 in hardware and games line up.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
Imru’ al-Qays;117026000 said:
I think that's as likely an outcome at any: Google and Apple get good enough at catering to core gamers that they kill the home console. But it's just as likely to me that that never happens: the home console lives on as a quite sizable and reasonably stable and profitable chunk of the gaming market that Google and Apple (etc) are unable or unwilling to crack. Maybe over many decades the size of this market relative to the overall population slowly dwindles, as console gaming becomes less of a cultural touchstone for young boys. But that's hardly a sure thing, and one can envision all sorts of other ways that could shake out.
Google and Apple don't really need to crack the home console market since they don't actually depend on video games for their mobile platforms to make money. Apple sells hardware primarily, while Google is an advertising company primarily. Apple wants a person to buy their products at a higher cost to build which make them money. Google wants a person to use their products which makes them money through ad revenue.
 

mo60

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,142
0
0
A couple million?! You're talking about a new market that's made up of 20% of the world's population in one country with a diverse and growing middle class. I think a couple million is a ridiculously low expectation LTD.

If 5% of China's population buys a console, that's 65 million units. We'll obviously revisit this when both products launch properly there.
Why does everyone think newer markets will all of the sudden make both next gen consoles sell gangbusters. The market in china and other growing gaming markets is different from the US and Europe. People mostly use there computers in these countries and play F2P games.Not a lot of people will want to spend hundreds of dollars on a console, the online services for these consoles and the games on the console when they can pay less money to play games on their computers, phones and tablets.There may be a lot of people in these countries that don't even game at all because of there living standards. Both sony and ms will have to persuade people in these markets to get either the xb1 or ps4, but I doubt they will be successful.
 

Final Verdict

Member
Mar 5, 2014
1,811
0
0
PS4 US LTD just gained another 118k lead in a single spring month :\

I have PS4 US LTD at 3301k and XB1 US LTD at 2718k or a difference of 583k or 21.5%

And the YTD difference is 44.6%
Not surprising since the PS4 had a big watchdogs bundle out, as well as MLB: The Show launch.

X1 had no exclusives release in may, and no big 3rd party bundles. Add on top of that the fact that the 399$ SKU was announced half way through the month (and has been advertised at places like gamestop) and that should explain the big gap in sales.

Next month I expect PS4 sales to be down significantly (since not much comes out), and X1 sales to be up significantly(since the cheaper SKU launches).
As for the Wii U, it will probably be close to the same as this month, but probably a bit higher.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
Google and Apple don't really need to crack the home console market since they don't actually depend on video games for their mobile platforms to make money. Apple sells hardware primarily, while Google is an advertising company primarily. Apple wants a person to buy their products at a higher cost to build which make them money. Google wants a person to use their products which makes them money through ad revenue.
Yes. Which is why I'm inclined to think they're not even going to try, and that we're going to see people migrating between the two markets rather than the casual market absorbing the core market.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
Why does everyone think newer markets will all of the sudden make both next gen consoles sell gangbusters. The market in china and other growing gaming markets is different from the US and Europe. People mostly use there computers in these countries and play F2P games.Not a lot of people will want to spend hundreds of dollars on a console, the online services for these consoles and the games on the console when they can pay less money to play games on their computers, phones and tablets.There may be a lot of people in these countries that don't even game at all because of there living standards. Both sony and ms will have to persuade people in these markets to get either the xb1 or ps4, but I doubt they will be successful.
They won't be successful in the sense that they attain anything like the market penetration they have in the West and Japan. But they'll sell some consoles and software, and as China and India etc get richer they'll sell more.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
At this point, this conversation has gone on long enough that I may have lost the plot somewhere...wasn't it you that implied that modern casual gamers are (reasonably) predictable and that Sony and MS have done nothing to attract that market?
Oh no, I wasn't saying modern casual gamers are predictable -- but I am saying that Sony and MS should have gone after them. Hopefully that makes my position clear.

When choosing a market to enter, you generally have to pick between predictable/not very profitable and unpredictable/very profitable. You can't have everything all at once.

I think the general pushback against casual gamers is that they are "fickle", success with them is/was a "fluke", and that going after them is extremely risky.

But here you seem to be implying that they are exactly that, unpredictable.

So what is your stance on the matter?
I definitely agree it's riskier, and also has smarter competition (if I had to pick my battles, I'd rather fight Sony and Nintendo than fight Apple and Google). What I'm saying is that it also has huge upside; the casual market has significantly more profit potential, it's larger, and it's growing.

I'm saying in the long term, abdicating that audience is a very bad idea. But yes, absolutely, it's riskier. That's the downside.
 

SwiftDeath

Member
May 31, 2013
23,627
0
0
Not surprising since the PS4 had a big watchdogs bundle out, as well as MLB: The Show launch.
There was no US Watch Dogs bundle for PS4 to my knowledge and I've looked.

The Watch Dogs Co-marketing and MLB the show did likely have a significantly positive effect however

X1 had no exclusives release in may, and no big 3rd party bundles. Add on top of that the fact that the 399$ SKU was announced half way through the month (and has been advertised at places like gamestop) and that should explain the big gap in sales.

Next month I expect PS4 sales to be down significantly (since not much comes out), and X1 sales to be up significantly(since the cheaper SKU launches).
As for the Wii U, it will probably be close to the same as this month, but probably a bit higher.
Again no one had big 3rd party bundles in the US in May but the announcement of the kinectless SKU almost assuredly cost MS quite a bit of sales in May that they are hoping are brought into June. I'm not sure how I feel on PS4 sales as technically the MOM change from May to June is supposedly +25% on average or so but I do think WD and MLB the show boosted PS4 numbers this month so maybe it will be down next month. Also June is 5 weeks so I'm talking more on a weekly basis then anything

Sorry, this has probably been asked before... So we're not getting numbers for PS4 and Xbox One?
Not officially but if you gander at post 3396 a little earlier in the thread you can get what you seek
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
I don't think this will follow long term. The lack of predictability of the "casual" market is mostly a consequence of their newness.

In the late 70s / early 80s, as today's "core" market was just being formed, we also saw a lot of churn and a huge amount of unpredictability. Companies like Collecovision, Intellivision, Sears, and of course Atari rose swiftly and then collapsed in to nothingness. As time has gone on, however, companies have figured out what people want and the market has become more solid and more predictable. Churn slowed. Sega was the last real victim, and since that point we've had the same 3 major competitors for nearly 15 years. The market is now highly predictable and very solidified.

Most markets start out this way. The market for soda was not always just Coke and Pepsi; it gradually solidified around them over the course of decades. We can see the market for Android phones gradually consolidating around winners (especially Samsung) right now.



I think you're more in tune with innovations inside genres you already like or are already familiar with. The differences seem particularly pronounced and important to you, similar to how small changes in the sound of a band may seem like a huge departure for a fan of the band but may sound identical to someone who isn't.

That doesn't mean that the genre didn't change at all, mind you. It did. I'm only examining the long term economic trends here.
There is plenty of churn in the console industry. Much of western 3rd party retail aaa industry rides on the backs of 12-17 y.o. boys. Was that not true in the collecovision/2600/etc days?
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
There is plenty of churn in the console industry.
There really isn't, relative to other markets, particularly nascent ones.

Much of western 3rd party retail aaa industry rides on the backs of 12-17 y.o. boys. Was that not true in the collecovision/2600/etc days?
That was true, and that's my point. The market for 12-17 year old boys was less predictable then, which is why we saw so much more frequent changes in market leadership; now it is highly predictable, and the market has been dominated by the same handful of companies for quite some time.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,895
2
0
Windsor, UK
Oh no, I wasn't saying modern casual gamers are predictable -- but I am saying that Sony and MS should have gone after them. Hopefully that makes my position clear.

When choosing a market to enter, you generally have to pick between predictable/not very profitable and unpredictable/very profitable. You can't have everything all at once.



I definitely agree it's riskier, and also has smarter competition (if I had to pick my battles, I'd rather fight Sony and Nintendo than fight Apple and Google). What I'm saying is that it also has huge upside; the casual market has significantly more profit potential, it's larger, and it's growing.

I'm saying in the long term, abdicating that audience is a very bad idea. But yes, absolutely, it's riskier. That's the downside.

Might be a long shot, but I think VR has a chance to capture that casual 'wii sports' audience if it takes off. People that don't necessarily want/need huge games requiring high investment of time, but will spend money for unique experiences

And I'm still waiting to see if apple open the App Store to the Apple TV somehow. That could be huge.

Personally I hope regular consoles don't go away, because otherwise we're stuck on smartphone technology and that drops us back a few years technically and I can see it hitting a brick wall pretty soon (fixed, low TDP)
 

mo60

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,142
0
0
Imru’ al-Qays;117035807 said:
They won't be successful in the sense that they attain anything like the market penetration they have in the West and Japan. But they'll sell some consoles and software, and as China and India etc get richer they'll sell more.
I agree with you, but the market gaming market will grow slowly because of what I mentioned in the post you quoted. I don't expect either the xb1 or ps4 to sell millions in china or India. They may break 500K or 1 million in both countries individually.Some of the other gaming markets may not contribute as much to the PS4 or XB1's final ltd.I don't think many people will be attracted to either console in any of the growing gaming markets because you actually have to play for PSN and/or XBL to use some of the features of the ps4 and/or xb1.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
There really isn't, relative to other markets, particularly nascent ones.



That was true, and that's my point. The market for 12-17 year old boys was less predictable then, which is why we saw so much more frequent changes in market leadership; now it is highly predictable, and the market has been dominated by the same handful of companies for quite some time.
So churn isn't people entering and leaving? i.e. last year's 17 y.o. is today's 18 y.o. who is replaced by last year's 11 y.o., if that makes any sense.
 

Teeth

Member
May 7, 2014
2,756
1
300
Oh no, I wasn't saying modern casual gamers are predictable -- but I am saying that Sony and MS should have gone after them. Hopefully that makes my position clear.

When choosing a market to enter, you generally have to pick between predictable/not very profitable and unpredictable/very profitable. You can't have everything all at once.
.
What's interesting to me is that, I imagine, if you asked any AAA producer whether they thought their project was not risky, they would collapse into a ball and start crying. Not because of content (including innovative mechanics/setting/etc), but because of audience expectation and budget.

They are basically caught between a rock and hard place, as staid games get mediocre sales and mediocre sales are enough to sink companies. On the other side, risky ventures are exactly that.

Tough times ahead.
 

Opiate

Member
Dec 4, 2007
22,805
0
0
Saint Louis / New York City
So churn isn't people entering and leaving? i.e. last year's 17 y.o. is today's 18 y.o. who is replaced by last year's 11 y.o., if that makes any sense.
Oh, I see, you mean consumer churn. I meant producer/manufcaturer churn, i.e. that the same four publishers have dominated the console software market for a considerable amount of time in the west, and the same three console manufacturers have been the major players for 15 years now.

I definitely agree there is consumer churn.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
Oh, I see, you mean consumer churn. I meant producer/manufcaturer churn, i.e. that the same four publishers have dominated the console market for a considerable amount of time, and the same three console manufacturers have been the major players for 15 years now.

I definitely agree there is consumer churn.
haha, so that's why i was confused. cheers.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
Oh no, I wasn't saying modern casual gamers are predictable -- but I am saying that Sony and MS should have gone after them. Hopefully that makes my position clear.
I think Sony and MS are going after them, but not with their consoles. Sony makes smartphones and MS has a mobile OS... Both pale in comparison to Samsung's smartphones, Google's mobile OS, and Apple's smartphones and mobile OS. It is only Nintendo who hasn't tried their hand at mobile smartphones and OSes, and the obvious reason for that is that Nintendo sees itself as a company like Apple. They have a large fanbase devoted for them and even their more recent expansion beyond that market was to make the Wii and DS into something like Apple products.
 

Kayant

Member
Feb 25, 2014
6,015
0
0
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
(Today, 03:14 AM)

Some peace I wonder if it's back to n4g for some trolling.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Jan 16, 2014
2,193
0
0
I think Sony and MS are going after them, but not with their consoles. Sony makes smartphones and MS has a mobile OS... Both pale in comparison to Samsung's smartphones, Google's mobile OS, and Apple's smartphones and mobile OS. It is only Nintendo who hasn't tried their hand at mobile smartphones and OSes, and the obvious reason for that is that Nintendo sees itself as a company like Apple. They have a large fanbase devoted for them and even their more recent expansion beyond that market was to make the Wii and DS into something like Apple products.
I think the multitude of entertainment options and software like kinect sports is indicative that Sony and MS are going after casuals with their consoles.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
I think the multitude of entertainment options and software like kinect sports is indicative that Sony and MS are going after casuals with their consoles.
Kinect Sports is an MS title meant to try to get the Kinect audience over and it seems to have ultimately failed if sales are any indication. I didn't see anything from Sony except them selling their Camera and Move controllers as optional accessories.
 

revolverjgw

Member
Sep 21, 2006
17,913
5
0
Nova Scotia
rateyourmusic.com
No one asked me, but I think as long as VR looks like a gigantic thing strapped to your head, it's not going to get into the mainstream.

I remember in the 90s when it was going to be the next big thing, it was popping up in arcades - and then, poof ,gone.
VR was never going to be "the next big thing" back then, it was a terrible experience, too expensive for home consumers, nobody cared, nobody carried it, and nobody seriously invested in it. It's a completely different beast now.