Quote:

 

You said that Nintendo knew they couldn't compete with Sony and Microsoft game-wise when they are in the only thing that ultimately matters, the element you ignored-- Sales.

Neo Metallix

May 18 2010, 01:30 PM

Selling a lot does not equal quality or a quantity of quality games.

I never said it did. It's not that relevant to the story anyways.

Sure you can bring sells into the argument, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Sales has everything to do with the subject because if the Wii wasn't as successful as it is, (i.e. had it not nearly outsold both the 360 and PS3 combined), especially in comparison to its failure of a predecessor, this would not even be a story; No one imitates the loser. Both companies think they can make more money, ie. sell more stuff, by trying to ride the Wii's coattails, thus here we are with Natal and the Move.

As for casual gamers only wanting casual games which is a majority of the Wii's catalog, I think Sony could get the upper hand if they support the Move right because the Move will undoubtedly not only get casual games(including Wii ports) but also hard core games(Socom 4 for example). This way they can attract the Wii crowd and attract the current PS3 fan-base, thus drawing in a more diverse consumer base.

Casuals will not suddenly buy PS3s and 360s in droves just because of the Move and Natal. The 360 and PS3 have developed their reputations as hardcore consoles versus casual ones this generation, and a console and manufacturer's reputation will always precede the games and peripherals. Example-- The Wii; It's not a hardcore console just because it has Red Steel Redemption, No More Heroes, and MadWorld on it. Nothing short of a complete re-branding of the 360 and PS3 consoles, a trashing of their agendas, and subsequently a near universal output of casual games for them will make the casual market respond to any great extent to either Microsoft or Sony.

Hardcores won't respond either if the games catered to them can't integrate motion controls in such a way that the games turn out to be games instead of gimmicks. Otherwise, as we've seen with the Wii, the motion controls will kill a game's immersion because the correspondence between character and player action will not be either consciously or visually reasonable. And since hardcore gamers buy games which promise blockbuster experiences, and with immersion being a big element of such an experience, then they will not respond that well either. This is, of course, unless Microsoft and Sony can out-Galaxy Galaxy on a regular basis, a concept I openly laugh at.

At this point, the Natal and Move are short-sighted gimmicks being shoved out to try and claim a piece of the Wii's pie. Both completely miss the biggest reason for the Wii's success, which is that it tapped into a market-- casuals-- that is significantly bigger than more orthodox gaming demographics and subsequently houses a boatload of games for them. Microsoft and Sony instead went with more traditional consoles that sell to a comparatively more niche' market than casuals, thus both competitors were completely usurped. Natal and the Move are desperate responses to this reality that miss the point that casuals play casual games and not necessarily games with motion control. If you want proof that casuals would rather play a casual game than a motion-controlled game, then look at the ridiculous success of PopCap games.

Quote:

 

Sales has everything to do with the subject because if the Wii wasn't as successful as it is, (i.e. had it not nearly outsold both the 360 and PS3 combined), especially in comparison to its failure of a predecessor, this would not even be a story; No one imitates the loser. Both companies think they can make more money, ie. sell more stuff, by trying to ride the Wii's coattails, thus here we are with Natal and the Move.

Quote:

 

Casuals will not suddenly buy PS3s and 360s in droves just because of the Move and Natal. The 360 and PS3 have developed their reputations as hardcore consoles versus casual ones this generation, and a console and manufacturer's reputation will always precede the games and peripherals.

Neo Metallix

May 19 2010, 05:04 PM

No, because it does not effect what I was talking about. Selling more does not mean you have the capacity to make more high-quality games, it's all about how much of a work force you have.

I've said it plenty of times, I'm not even arguing that quantity=quality; Please drop that strawman.

My point which is simply this: The only reason the Move and Natal exist is because the Wii sold a lot. If the Wii pulled a Gamecube again, would Microsoft and Sony would be pushing motion-technology to this extent so late in the game? No, because the market that is hardcore gamers would still be the one that would be considered the most profitable.

Have you learned nothing from Apple? If you market it well, you can sell anything in droves. Casuals will not buy PS3s and 360s just because of these peripherals, no, but if you add a decent marketing campaign behind it and have what these casuals want they will be interested in trying it out and more inclined to purchase it after they get a taste of it. Are you forgetting the one main factor of casuals? They aren't loyal to crap like the hardcore gamer, they'll go wherever they think the "next big thing" is so reputation and brand means squat to them.

As I said, if Microsoft and Sony were to market their consoles to such an extent as to significantly sway the tide of casuals away from the Wii, they would be inviting resentment from the loyal regulars who specifically bought their consoles in direct opposition to the casual competitor. The companies would be producing more games that many of their current customers have already admitted that they don't want because they didn't buy/sold/bad-mouthed their Wiis.

Here's an example of what I mean-- I'm a customer that loves coffee and hates tea. So, I go to Starbucks for coffee. Another drink competitor decides to start selling tea and subsequently overtakes Starbucks because tea is more popular. In response, Starbucks starts selling tea too, perhaps at the cost of the existence of some my favorite coffee items or their quality. Guess what I'm probably going to do at that point: Shop there less or just go somewhere else, because I don't want Starbucks to sell tea. They're a coffee company. Making coffee what they're good at.

Microsoft and Sony are good at marketing towards a hardcore audience. They don't need to be jacks-of-all-trades.

The Playstation brand has a reputation for having diverse games that cater to every audience, it is not a solely hardcore console and I don't think anyone sees it as solely hardcore with all of the quirky and weird games that have come out for it. The only reason some of these casual games on PS3 haven't had success is they weren't marketed. LittleBigPlanet was and that is one reason it has sold so well.

Sorry, but the PS3 does not have that reputation. It is the most graphically and technologically advanced video game console of all time. Its heavy-hitters and best sellers are games like Resistance, Uncharted, and MAG. The PS3 is not a "For the whole family!" console just because it has a few casual games and LittleBigPlanet; It's the same reason no one calls the Wii hardcore because it has No More Heroes, Red Steel, MadWorld, and The Conduit on it. If the PS3's reputation was really that obvious, this generation wouldn't be so one-sided.