The Wii's popularity pisses me off!

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that's not their focus, and many of those games have sold poorly on the Wii.

They are competing for core gamers, but not putting much marketing effort into it, and in practicality they're not having much success with that. I mean last I checked Metroid Prime 3 was under 500,000K in sales in the US (probably just over now) and Halo 3 sold 3.3 million copies in a WEEK. Not necessarily a fair comparison. But I'm sure you can find plenty other FPS games that aren't the phenomenon Halo is on the 360 that have sold a lot more than MP3 to a user base that's about the same size now.

Another problem with your list is you only go top 10. That listes nearly all the core games the Wii has, while the Xbox 360 has many more that score 80% or above than does the Wii etc. etc. To be exact the Wii has 10 games at 80% or above-9 I'd call core games (WarioWare certainly not). The 360 has 76 games at 80% or above. Only 2 or 3 I'd say aren't core games--Viva Pinata, and some arcade games like UNO.

Clearly, MS is making more of an effort at core gamers.

Again, Nintendo is trying to compete, but it's not Nintendo's focus, as they STATED THEMSELVES at the outset that they wanted to focus more on casual gamer and non-gamers than MS or Sony was.

And they're doing a poor job of competing for core gamers. If you're a core gamer that likes FPS, racing, online gaming, HD graphics, RPGs etc. etc. you're going to be a miserable son of a bitch if you only have a Wii. I sure was until I got a 360 to go along with it a couple months ago. Because Nintendo isn't putting as much effort into that, and is spending development time on stuff like Wii Fit. And Third parties are following suit as they see the success of these cheap to develop casual games.

Thus those of us who want FPS, online gaming and traditional games beyond Nitnendo's big three franchises just have shit to play so far. And that's fine as nintendo's making a huge profit by shifting their focus and competing less directly for my business.

I just don't see why people are so defensive of this notion that Nintendo, BY CHOICE, isn't competing as directly or effectively for the core gamer's business this generation. It's not a slight on the company--they're doing GREAT. Are you people just subconciously worried that you won't have much to play over the coming years? Or is it just extreme brand loyalty/fanboyism causing you to take it as a slight against them?
 
[quote name='PhoenixT']Ummm...dude your know your suppose to use the little shaq-fu tag for cuss words right? Besides the conversation was rather civil till you came in here and started dropping fbombs like sailor O_O.[/quote]
If the fucking computer wants to fucking censor me, it is more than fucking welcome to. I'm not going to go to insert a fucking shaq-fu tag every fucking time I want to say fuck. I don't know why the fuck it censored me in some fucking places and not the others. Take it up with the fucking computer.

edit: and I maintain that my post was civil anyway. I wasn't cursing AT anyone, merely cursing to express my frustration. I didn't call anyone a fucking fuck, I merely said fuck. Oh, and I have come to realize that for some reason the site doesn't censor fuck when it is in all caps. I don't know why that is. edit again: Well, upon further investigation I have come to realize that it does not censor fuck when it is in all caps because it is not a smilie/tag. I do believe that it should probably be made a tag because of the nature of the way the word is sometimes used.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']Actually that twice including the two post above ;-)[/QUOTE]

Nope a ton of times. We've always said they compete LESS DIRECTLY, not that they don't even try to compete.

They of course are, but they're making boatloads of money because they DECIDED to compete LESS DIRECTLY in the core gamer market, and try mainly to retain their core market of fans and expand by bringing in casual gamers and non-gamers as they'd failed utterly the last two gens by trying to win over core gamers who buy consoles for Madden, GTA, MGS, Halo etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I really don't see how it's hard to grasp. Maybe it's just denial from people who thinks that saying that Nintendo competes less directly with Sony and MS than they do with each other is a slam on Nintendo.[/quote]

Dmaul you hit the nail on the head.

We've expressed ourselves quite clearly, civilly, and repeatedly, yet people still choose to interpret "does not compete the same way" as "does not compete at all." Again, without insulting anybody in particular, if you can't see the difference in these two propositions you're either a (lets keep it civil) or an (lets keep it civil).
 
[quote name='drfunk85']If the fucking computer wants to fucking censor me, it is more than fucking welcome to. I'm not going to go to insert a fucking shaq-fu tag every fucking time I want to say fuck. I don't know why the fuck it censored me in some fucking places and not the others. Take it up with the fucking computer.

edit: and I maintain that my post was civil anyway. I wasn't cursing AT anyone, merely cursing to express my frustration. I didn't call anyone a fucking fuck, I merely said fuck. Oh, and I have come to realize that for some reason the site doesn't censor fuck when it is in all caps. I don't know why that is. edit again: Well, upon further investigation I have come to realize that it does not censor fuck when it is in all caps because it is not a smilie/tag. I do believe that it should probably be made a tag because of the nature of the way the word is sometimes used.[/quote]

oh..that clears things up , carry on sailor *salute* ;)
 
I have a few questions for everyone who thinks they are all competing as directly:

Does a SD DVD player compete with a HD-DVD player in the same way that a Blu Ray player does?
Does Major League Baseball compete with NCAA Basketball in the same way that NBA basketball does?
Does Britney Spears' album compete with N'Sync's album the same way that Backstreet Boy's does?
Does an iPod compete with AM Radio in the same way that FM Radio does?
Does the DVD of Heroes compete with the DVD of The Hills the way the DVD of The O.C. does?
Does Wii Sports compete with Medal of Honor Vanguard the way Medal of Honor Heroes 2 does?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul you hit the nail on the head.

We've expressed ourselves quite clearly, civilly, and repeatedly, yet people still choose to interpret "does not compete the same way" as "does not compete at all." Again, without insulting anybody in particular, if you can't see the difference in these two propositions you're either a (lets keep it civil) or an (lets keep it civil).[/QUOTE]


Exactly. I don't mind people who disagree that they compete less directly. They have a right to that opinion.

But I can't see how people keep thinking anyone is saying that Nintendo doesn't compete at all when we've very clearly said that they compete LESS DIRECTLY or DIFFERENTLY.
 
[quote name='drfunk85']
Does Wii Sports compete with Medal of Honor Vanguard the way Medal of Honor Heroes 2 does?[/QUOTE]


This is a great example. They all compete to some degree as they are all games. But if someone goes to the store wanting an FPS, they aren't going to even be looking at Wii Sports or another casual game.

It's the same with consoles. If a person want's a console to play FPS games on, to do online gaming, to have HD graphics etc. they aren't even going to look at the Wii, even though it IS a gaming console.

Thus the Wii competes LESS DIRECTLY with the PS3/360 than they do with each others--since both (while having differences) offer decent online gaming, a good selection of FPS games, and HD graphics.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul you hit the nail on the head.

We've expressed ourselves quite clearly, civilly, and repeatedly, yet people still choose to interpret "does not compete the same way" as "does not compete at all." Again, without insulting anybody in particular, if you can't see the difference in these two propositions you're either a (lets keep it civil) or an (lets keep it civil).[/quote]

Yes, yes, yes.



I am a Wii/Nintendo fanboy. I love Mario. These are the only systems I have owned in my lifetime: NES, SNES, original gameboy, gameboy color, N64, Gamecube, DS, Wii. I have never owned a playstation, Sega, or XBOX. My brother had a PS2 that I played occasionally.

Saying that the Wii is more different from the PS3/360 than they are from eachother is not a slam. It's actually more of a complement. But either way it just is. The thing is different.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope a ton of times. We've always said they compete LESS DIRECTLY, not that they don't even try to compete.

They of course are, but they're making boatloads of money because they DECIDED to compete LESS DIRECTLY in the core gamer market, and try mainly to retain their core market of fans and expand by bringing in casual gamers and non-gamers as they'd failed utterly the last two gens by trying to win over core gamers who buy consoles for Madden, GTA, MGS, Halo etc.[/quote]
That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing.
I have only said a that statment twice so i guess 2+0= tons of times?
(unless you are just refering to nintedo is competeing directly, which is ofcourse in all the post becuse thats what this whole debate is about. which would bring it to a grand total of 3 time;-) )
back to the subeject I'm saying that people who buy the console just for Madden, GTA, MGS, Halo ussualy are not"hard core gamers" and most of the other games they buy are shovelware like 50 bullet proof or bad GTA/halo. clones. none of which helps a system get good games.
Was the game cube not going competing for Gamers? The wii has or is comming out with all the same types of games that where on the cube.
Nintedo was smart enough to get non-traditional gamers to buy there home console. They also smart enough not to count on this same market to carry them forever, mabey not even to the next gen. They are going to continue to try a recapture the gaming markert.

As you have posted tons of times in every Wii thread "the wii has no games and is not a real system but im not trolling cause I have a wii"(which im getting tierd of reading about, this argument is going no where, I don't feel like teaching you to count lets just ignore eachother and make room for some intelligent discussion. ;-)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']This is a great example. They all compete to some degree as they are all games. But if someone goes to the store wanting an FPS, they aren't going to even be looking at Wii Sports or another casual game.

It's the same with consoles. If a person want's a console to play FPS games on, to do online gaming, to have HD graphics etc. they aren't even going to look at the Wii, even though it IS a gaming console.

Thus the Wii competes LESS DIRECTLY with the PS3/360 than they do with each others--since both (while having differences) offer decent online gaming, a good selection of FPS games, and HD graphics.[/quote]

It's not even just that. Yes, the Wii offers FPS shooters too. The Wii offers things for people that aren't casual gamers. The 360 and PS3 have things that aren't FPS that do appeal to casual gamers. The differences in the games aren't the biggest thing setting them apart.

The point is, when you bundle everything together; you look at the hardware, the controller, the game selection, and everything else about the three systems. And when you do this, you add everything up, and you get three different packages. The packages labelled 360 and PS3 have their differences, but they are fairly similar. The package labelled Wii is also similar to those other packages, but it's just not quite as similar.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing.)[/QUOTE]

Christ dude. My point, which I and others have MADE A THOUSAND TIMES is that Nintendo is competing, just LESS DIRECTLY. I wasn't saying you'd said anything repeatedly, just that you'd missed OUR point which we've stated repeatedly.

That's just going right over your head for some reason. Yes games like Manhunt show that they are making some effort to compete.

But it's not their main fucking focus. They stated themselves at the outset that they wanted to focus on Nintendo fans, casual gamers and non-gamers, and there marketing has focused on Wii Sports, the motion controls etc. Not games like Metroid Prime 3 or Manhunt 2. So they are competing less directly with Sony and MS than those two do with each other by hyping and touting games like Halo 3 etc.

Why's that so hard to grasp? They ARE competing. Just less directly BECAUSE THEY SET OUT NOT TO FOCUS SO MUCH ON CORE GAMERS.

It's not rocket science, and it's not a slam on Nintendo. How could it be when they're back on top and making a ton of bank after getting their ass kicked to generations previously?

At any rate, if you still don't get that we AREN'T saying that they are NOT competing, just that they're not trying to DIRECTLY compete with MS and Sony to the extent they did in the past, then I don't know what to say.

Take a fucking reading comprehension class and get back to us I guess. :D
 
[quote name='drfunk85']It's not even just that. Yes, the Wii offers FPS shooters too. The Wii offers things for people that aren't casual gamers. The 360 and PS3 have things that aren't FPS that do appeal to casual gamers. The differences in the games aren't the biggest thing setting them apart.

The point is, when you bundle everything together; you look at the hardware, the controller, the game selection, and everything else about the three systems. And when you do this, you add everything up, and you get three different packages. The packages labelled 360 and PS3 have their differences, but they are fairly similar. The package labelled Wii is also similar to those other packages, but it's just not quite as similar.[/QUOTE]


I personally can't agree with that as I see the difference in game libraries setting them apart to a greater extent than the hardware differences (though those matter a lot as well).

Yes the Wii has some FPS games, but only a couple worth playing, and I doubt it will EVER have enough good FPS games on a yearly basis to be the main or only console for an FPS fan.

Same with sports sims, racing sims, fighting games, RPGs etc. It will get some, but not enough to keep huge fans of the genre satisfied--just like the N64 and GC didn't have enough games in most of those genres to be the main system for big fans of such games.

So it's really the AMOUNT of games in certain genres that set them apart the most in my eyes.

Though of course the hardware differences (graphics and especially controllers) make a big difference in both distinguishing the hardware as well as directly influencing the amounts of games available in certain genres.
 
My old roommate and I both have a Wii and a 360. If they were competing for the same demographic (versus a market share: which they are), we would most likely only own one. In our personal preference, the Xbox tends to fit into the hardcore gaming (your Halos, Mass Effects, BioShocks), and the Wii hits on this simple casual gaming niche and Nintendo fanchise standbys. When I have people over, nobody really wants to watch someone play BioShock. When nobody else is around, I don't feel motivated to crack out Mario Party. When I don't have tons of time or I feel like a lazy slug, I bust out Wii Sports and box.

If you're the type of gamer.. or non gamer, that fits some of those criterion but not another, you're only likely to own one system. This is why Nintendo is really benefitting from not competing for the same demo as the PS3/360. I'm basing some of these assumptions on the fact that if you own a PS3 or 360, you're not very likely to own the other.

When the Wii was coming together, Nintendo knew that both MS and Sony would come out firing for the hardcore gamers - the Xbox as a quasi gaming PC replacement and media center, the PS3 as a high-end gaming machine and Blu-Ray player/media center. The difference between a gamer picking between those 2 systems has a lot to do with the politics of format wars and title selection. The Wii just seems to discreetly slide in there, converting casual and non-gamers as well as selling to hardcore gamers.

This is not to say that Nintendo gamers aren't hardcore, or that there aren't epic games for it. It's just that the public perception for those who aren't steeped in nerd-dom or fanboyism can see it as a "cheap" family-friendly system that everyone can pick up.

Cliff notes: Wii's accessibility allows it to compete for households its in, rather than competing for percentage against other systems. Speedy thing goes in - speedy thing comes out.

Edit: Aside from Metroid, FPS games on the Wii blow in my opinion.
 
Very well put, WeLoveDaisuke!

I'm in the same boat. Needed both a 360 and Wii to fill my gaming needs. I love Nintendo's main franchies, but they just can't fill my need for online gaming, FPS, RPG, fighters etc. etc.

But I have no desire for a PS3 now as it just doesn't offer anything different, as far of type of gaming experience goes, that I can't get on the 360. I miss certain franchises like MGS, Final Fantasy etc, but they'll have decent substitues on the 360 or Wii.

So that's a good way to show how the Wii offers something different, and thus competes less directly.

The PS3/360 were in direct competition for my $$$, I looked at games on both and opted for the 360 (price also a factor at the time). With the Wii, it was a separate decision as it was bought for Nintendo games and the promise of motion controls. There was no comparing the game lineup to the competition, as it just didn't compete on that front. It was pretty much totally separate, even though it is also a gaming machine.
 
WeLoveDaisuke - thank you, dude, because I'm a moron sometimes who has issues with the simpliest market terms.

Market share competition is the only one I ever talked about, mostly because I feel that the discussion of demographic differences is difficult to properly discuss in light of extreme youth of all systems (including the good old 360). I know it's cheap to make this point "way after the fact," though.

I do want to know, that apart from pittpizza's somewhat grating "you're a moron" argumentation (which was really a cause of frustrated miscommunication on my behalf, so no hard feelings whatsoever there) this conversation was indeed quite civil. There is no way to give anyone props for being "civil" without sounding patronizing, but for what it's worth, my intentions are good.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']
Market share competition is the only one I ever talked about, mostly because I feel that the discussion of demographic differences is difficult to properly discuss in light of extreme youth of all systems (including the good old 360). I know it's cheap to make this point "way after the fact," though.
[/QUOTE]

That is fair. All we can talk about now is how they are competing currently. Of course all competing for the same overall market share.

But the PS3/360 are going about it in pretty much the same manner by offering more or less the same types of gaming experiences aimed at core gamers to get market share, while Nintendo decided to try and gain market share by bringing in casual and non gamers, along with Nintendo fans and the odd core gamer.

Thus they are competing for the same market share, but Sony/MS are doing it more directly by going head to head over the same demographich, while to date this gen Nintendo hasn't focused as much on the core gamer demographic in their efforst to gain marketshare.

That's all we've been saying. Not that they're not all going after leading the gaming market share. They are, but they are competing directly with each other to varying degrees do to Nintendo thus far using a very different approach to gain market share, while MS and Sony are trying much more similar approaches by focusing on core gamers, online gaming, HD movie playback, HD games etc. etc.
 
dmaul:

There is one thing that I found to be consistently missing out in all of your claims for Nintendo's target markets, and that is the notion of "Gamer, just" since you always mention fans, casual, and non-gamers.

I'm certain that fanboy claims will fly my way for this, but I do believe that Nintendo targets gamers, that's exactly why titles like Fire Emblem (read: a difficult, genre-conscious title for Strategy RPG gamers) exist on the Wii. This doesn't really change much, since you can always argue that Nintendo is doing less than a spectacular job with "gamer" market than PS3/360, but I don't believe that I'm wrong when I say that Nintendo would most certainly admit to being extremely interested (and somewhat depending) on this market.
 
While the whole discussion about who competes with whom was rather interesting, I think the original post was about something else.

I guess I would fit the description of the OP's friend in that I'm hesitant to get into Zelda, MP and even Galaxy for the exact reason they are 'the best to offer' in the OP's opinion: these are epic games that require commitment.


You see, I don't have time. I already have job, wife, friends, house , other hobbies (no kids, though) - how I'm supposed to get the time necessary to complete these epic adventures? Did you ever try to watch a movie in 5 minute daily installments over a month?

So, my response would be that these are not the 'best' for me, at least for now. I would say the same to anyone who would criticize me for not reading Dostoyevky every day or still not 'finishing' every Bergman movie there is.


I still enjoy the heck out of the Wii though. And yes, I bought TP and MP3 recently just in case some time opens up.
 
honestly I see this being a very good thing for the market as a whole. I mean look at what the IPod did for the MP3 player market. That market went from mostly techno savvy people to almost everyone on the friggin planet. Nintendo has taken a few pages from their book and put gaming more into the limelight. By this I mean the way they advertise it showing people of all ages playing and having fun. The way they split it down to an affordable system with enough periphrials to give people as much or as little of the "Wii Experience" as they want.

The upside to this is we'll see a lot wider range of games come out the downside being that new gaming markets that the "core" community of gamers who have been doing this for a hobby for years won't care for. Just like the way a lot of games have been toned down in difficulty to appeal to a larger audience without frustrating them this becomes another step in that same process. Its a way of approaching widing the appeal of gaming not by making gaming "easier" but by making it "more accessible" through simplified controls.

Honestly I think we could all reasonably say that this was likely coming at some point I mean the atari had a joystick and one button. Nintendo two buttons and a Dpad,Snes 6 buttons and a dpad, Now most have 8 buttons or more and if a lot of gamers had it their way they'd be using keyboards and mouse's giving even "more" buttons. This trend can only go so far before you rule out all but the most dedicated "core" crowd.

Nintendo I think saw this and came up with an innovative and fun way to simplify the way someone interfaces with the game and not taking away from the challange and fun of the experience which will pull more people into the "core" crowd as they start exploring more of what gaming has to offer as a hobby. This has been the thing thats kept Nintendo around that almost no other company can match in gaming is innovation dpads,touch screens,analog sticks , motion control. More often than not you'll find Nintendo the first to integrate things like this into the gaming world and it works!
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']dmaul:

There is one thing that I found to be consistently missing out in all of your claims for Nintendo's target markets, and that is the notion of "Gamer, just" since you always mention fans, casual, and non-gamers.

I'm certain that fanboy claims will fly my way for this, but I do believe that Nintendo targets gamers, that's exactly why titles like Fire Emblem (read: a difficult, genre-conscious title for Strategy RPG gamers) exist on the Wii. This doesn't really change much, since you can always argue that Nintendo is doing less than a spectacular job with "gamer" market than PS3/360, but I don't believe that I'm wrong when I say that Nintendo would most certainly admit to being extremely interested (and somewhat depending) on this market.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, the gamer tag is an over simplification.

It's better to say that Nintendo and PS3/360 target different TYPES of gamers.

In my view, Nintendo is most focused on--in order:

1. Casual/non-gamers (see all the marketing on Wii Sports, Wii Fit etc, and next to nothing for Metroid, Zelda etc.).

2. Gamers who grew up on Nintendo and have stuck buy them. See the big 3, fan service games like Mario Party, Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, Strikers etc.

3. Other gamers who are kind of into their stuff and casual games, but may get sucked in for MP3, RE4, the light gun games, Zak and Wiki, Fire Emblem, Man Hunt etc.

4. The mainstream gamer--into sports games, fighting games, FPS games and the other huge selling main stream genres that were a huge success on the PS1 and PS2.

While MS/Sony are after (in less particular order):

1. The mainstream gamer--into sports games, fighting games, FPS games and the other huge selling main stream genres that were a huge success on the PS1 and PS2.

2. Graphics whores.

3. Online gamers

4. Casual/non-gamers.


That's still a bit of an over simplification, but better than the "core gamer" lump term I was using before.

I don't think there's much of a reasonble argument that Nintendo isn't focusing marketing efforts on a different audience than Sony/MS nor that the current game libraries on the PS3/360 skew to the same TYPE of gamer while Nintendo's skews more to a DIFFERENT TYPE of gamer.

Again, somone that wants FPS, online gaming, good sports sims (not arcadey sports games), fighting games like VF5, Roleplaying games etc. is going to be very grumpy if they only own a Wii.

Just like someone that likes pick up and play games, Nintendo franchises etc. will be grumpy if you only own a PS3/360.

There are different types of gamers out there with unique tastes, and the groups that the 360 and PS3 appeal to will have a lot more overlap than they will with the Wii groups just due to current nature of the huge differences in the types/quanties within genres of games avaible on the Wii versus the PS3/360 as well as the bigger difference in hardware power and control schemes.

Does that sound more reasonable?
 
[quote name='pgpg']While the whole discussion about who competes with whom was rather interesting, I think the original post was about something else.

I guess I would fit the description of the OP's friend in that I'm hesitant to get into Zelda, MP and even Galaxy for the exact reason they are 'the best to offer' in the OP's opinion: these are epic games that require commitment.


You see, I don't have time. I already have job, wife, friends, house , other hobbies (no kids, though) - how I'm supposed to get the time necessary to complete these epic adventures? Did you ever try to watch a movie in 5 minute daily installments over a month?

So, my response would be that these are not the 'best' for me, at least for now. I would say the same to anyone who would criticize me for not reading Dostoyevky every day or still not 'finishing' every Bergman movie there is.


I still enjoy the heck out of the Wii though. And yes, I bought TP and MP3 recently just in case some time opens up.[/quote]

To follow up on this I don't have much time either having a rigerous fitness schedule along with a full time job and a GF to keep happy. I still manage to work in 30 min to an hr here and there to play. Most games are made to where their accessible to picking up and playing for that short of a time no matter how much you'd like to spend more playing ;).
 
is the Wii a video game system??? is the 360?? is the PS3?? then they are direct competition...so I guess the DS doesn't compete 'directly' with the PSP because the DS uses a stylus and is a touch screen??
 
[quote name='Strell']The 360 is white. The Wii is white.

How are they not directly competing again?[/quote]

My 360 is black
 
[quote name='DJSteel']is the Wii a video game system??? is the 360?? is the PS3?? then they are direct competition...so I guess the DS doesn't compete 'directly' with the PSP because the DS uses a stylus and is a touch screen??[/QUOTE]

They compete for market share in the same industry.

But that doesn't mean that they can't compete DIFFERENTLY/LESS directly (not emphasis on LESS) by focusing on different types of games that appeal to different groups of gamers. That much is apparent by the difference in quantities of games in certain genres, different levels of effort put into online, and most clearly by differnces in who the companies advertising targets.

Again,no one has said they don't directly compete, just that Nintendo competes LESS directly Sony or MS than Sony and MS do with each other due to putting effort into targeting a different demographic of gamers.

But they're all after market share in the video game industry so they all compete directly with each other. It's just that the degree of direct competition differs since MS and Sony are going head to head at the same demographic, while Nintendo is focusing a bit less on that demographic and putting more of their eggs in the casual gamer/non-gamer basket than Sony and MS are.

As for DS/PSP, they compete more directly than the Wii does with the PS3/360, but still not as directly as the PS3 and 360 do with each other. The DS has a lot more "hardcore" games, so it gives more attention to that demographic than the Wii has thus far. But it still has enough focus on casual games and gamers to make it more different from the PSP than the PS3 is from the 360 if that makes sense.


Basically, what it boils down to is think of genres of games and ask if fans of that genre would be happy with console X as their only or main console. With the PS3/360 you're going to say "YES" to pretty much the same group of genres for each currently, while with the Wii you'll be saying "NO" to most of these genres, and "YES" to several that you said "NO" to for the 360 and PS3.

The 360 and PS3 offer very similar types of games in terms of genres that are most prolific than does the Wii. There's really no debate here, that's just a fact as the libraries currently stand. Though of course it could even out in the coming years.

And as such, the PS3/360 compete more directly as they're trying to sell the type of games to the same type of gamers. Nintendo, while after the same market share, is competing for it indirectly (i.e. not challenging it's competitors for the EXACT SAME CUSTOMERS) by offering different types of games and trying to expand the market base to NEW CUSTOMERS.
 
See I did my good deed for the day I amused Strell =).

P.S. I got the point of your earlier post Strell I just thought I'd make an "attempt" at humor.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They compete for market share in the same industry.

But that doesn't mean that they can't compete DIFFERENTLY/LESS directly (not emphasis on LESS) by focusing on different types of games that appeal to different groups of gamers. That much is apparent by the difference in quantities of games in certain genres, different levels of effort put into online, and most clearly by differnces in who the companies advertising targets.

Again,no one has said they don't directly compete, just that Nintendo competes LESS directly Sony or MS than Sony and MS do with each other due to putting effort into targeting a different demographic of gamers.

But they're all after market share in the video game industry so they all compete directly with each other. It's just that the degree of direct competition differs since MS and Sony are going head to head at the same demographic, while Nintendo is focusing a bit less on that demographic and putting more of their eggs in the casual gamer/non-gamer basket than Sony and MS are.

As for DS/PSP, they compete more directly than the Wii does with the PS3/360, but still not as directly as the PS3 and 360 do with each other. The DS has a lot more "hardcore" games, so it gives more attention to that demographic than the Wii has thus far. But it still has enough focus on casual games and gamers to make it more different from the PSP than the PS3 is from the 360 if that makes sense.


Basically, what it boils down to is think of genres of games and ask if fans of that genre would be happy with console X as their only or main console. With the PS3/360 you're going to say "YES" to pretty much the same group of genres for each currently, while with the Wii you'll be saying "NO" to most of these genres, and "YES" to several that you said "NO" to for the 360 and PS3.

The 360 and PS3 offer very similar types of games in terms of genres that are most prolific than does the Wii. There's really no debate here, that's just a fact as the libraries currently stand. Though of course it could even out in the coming years.

And as such, the PS3/360 compete more directly as they're trying to sell the type of games to the same type of gamers. Nintendo, while after the same market share, is competing for it indirectly (i.e. not challenging it's competitors for the EXACT SAME CUSTOMERS) by offering different types of games and trying to expand the market base to NEW CUSTOMERS.[/quote]

wtf are you talking about? how can you determine what games are more hardcore than others??? Please help me understand the direct/less direct idea with a parallel..
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul I admire your patience.[/QUOTE]

Meh. Have nothing better to do today. Doing some statistical analyses today at work that take around 30 minutes a pop to run, and really no work I can do in between so have to fill the time until it finishes and I can run the next one up somehow. :D
 
honestly dmaul I think everyones gotten your viewpoint at this stage in the game just a few are popping their heads in to rattle the cage so to speak and keep you going for idle amusement. Keep in mind in most the forums this is really the only thread thats getting a decent amount of posts. Its kept me mildy amused all day :).
 
[quote name='DJSteel']wtf are you talking about? how can you determine what games are more hardcore than others??? Please help me understand the direct/less direct idea with a parallel..[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with games being hardcore. It just has to do with different people liking different genres of games and the 360/PS3 offer pretty much the same genres, while the Wii is weak in many of these but strong in genres the 360/PS3 don’t have or are week in..

This part from my last post sums up that point up well.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
Basically, what it boils down to is think of genres of games and ask if fans of that genre would be happy with console X as their only or main console. With the PS3/360 you're going to say "YES" to pretty much the same group of genres for each currently, while with the Wii you'll be saying "NO" to most of these genres, and "YES" to several that you said "NO" to for the 360 and PS3.
[/QUOTE]

To go through some examples of genres/features and whether a diehard fan of each genre would be happy with having each system as their only or main console (i.e. would they have enough high quality games in that genre to keep them happy currently)....

Genres
FPS: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii= no
Racing Sims: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Fighting Games: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Party games: 360=no PS3=no Wii=yes
Mini-games: 360=no PS3=no Wii=yes
Platformers: 360=no PS3=yes Wii=yes
Sports Sims: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
....that's enough



Features
HD-Movie Playback= 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
HD Graphics: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Quality online gaming in general: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Downloadable games: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=yes
Motion controls:
...again enough to get the gist.


Now what do you see? PS3/360 pretty much have yes to the same things and no to the same things, while the Wii tends to be the opposite of BOTH of them.

So to get at the "competing less directly" point we've been trying to make....when someone goes to buy a console the decision between 360/PS3 or Wii can be made simply on big picture issues like:

Do you want FPS? Racing? Sports? etc. Bascially on Genre support rather than specific titles. As well as big questions like Do you want HD games? HD Movies? Motion controls? etc.

Now, if a person rules out the Wii on these issues, the decision between PS3 and 360 is much more nuanced. Genre support is pretty comparable, so one has to look at what exclusives they like best in their favorite genres, which controller they like better, whether they want a blu ray player etc.

That is more DIRECT competition as the decision is made on the specifics of each, rather than broad factors.

As for a parallel I still like my car example, though I won’t use sports car this time to avoid the luxury issue. A mid-sized sedan and a mini-van compete for the same general automobile market share, but not very directly. A person who wants a mini-van will just look at different mini-vans and SUVs and not at Sedans. Thus a Ford Mini Van competes MOER DIRECTLY with a Chevy Minivan than it does with a Honda Accord.

It's the same here IMO as I view the Wii as just as different from the PS3/360 as a sedan is from a mini-van, and as such it appeals to a demographic that has less overlap than do the demographic groups that prefer the PS3/360 offerings. This leads to LESS DIRECT competition. If someone who likes FPSs or is into online gaming or wants HD etc. won't really consider the Wii very (or the impulse gamer who plays Halo or Resistance and decides to buy one for themselves—this doesn’t require a very informed decision to equal differing degreees of competition). And someone who likes pick up and play games and/or Nintendo games won't really consider a PS3/360 as their MAIN/ONLY system. And again, same for someone who plays Wii sports and decides to get one. This logic doesn't only apply to informed consumers--they also compete less directly for impulse buys. They offer different TYPES of big games, and different TYPES of gamers/people will be led to impulse buy a Wii after playing Wii Sports will be very different in their gaming interests from one who decides to impulse buy a 360 after playing Halo 3.

If a purchase decision can be made on broad factors, rather than very specific features, exclusive titles, that’s competing LESS DIRECTLY than two consoles that offer very similar types of games, very similar features and thus purchase decision is either impulse or thought out over very specific items. That is MORE DIRECT competition. Though of course all three are going for market share in the same industry Nintendo is trying to gain market share DIFFERENTLY by focusing on a different demographic

Hope that helps clear it up.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It has nothing to do with games being hardcore. It just has to do with different people liking different genres of games and the 360/PS3 offer pretty much the same genres, while the Wii is weak in many of these but strong in genres the 360/PS3 don’t have or are week in..

This part from my last post sums up that point up well.



To go through some examples of genres/features and whether a diehard fan of each genre would be happy with having each system as their only or main console (i.e. would they have enough high quality games in that genre to keep them happy currently)....

Genres
FPS: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii= no
Racing Sims: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Fighting Games: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
Party games: 360=no PS3=no Wii=yes
Mini-games: 360=no PS3=no Wii=yes
Platformers: 360=no PS3=yes Wii=yes
Sports Sims: 360=yes PS3=yes Wii=no
....that's enough
[/quote]

FPS - Metroid, COD3, Red Steel, Far Cry Vengence, Ghost Squad, Medal of Honor, Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles

Racing Sims - what do you call a sim?? Forza?? Gran Turismo?? or do the Need for Speeds count?

Fighting Games - Dragonball Z, Guilty Gear XX, Mortal Kombat, Naruto, Bleach..etc

Sports Sims - Madden series, Tiger Woods Series, NBA Live, Fifa,
 
I'm not going to argue the particulars very much, as I never said the Wii doesn't have any games in those genres.

Just that it doesn't have the quality AND quantity of games to keep a HUGE fan of those genre's happy. i.e. Metroid is the only AAA FPS game (and it's not a super traditional FPS, so many Halo fans etc. don't like it), Ghost squad and RE: UC are light gun type games, not FPS. The new Medal of Honor is ok. The rest you listed sucked balls and got terrible reviews.

A big FPS fan isn't going to buy a Wii for those, they're going with one of the others for Bioshock, Halo, Orange Box, Haze, Call of Duty 2 and 4 (and the non-sucky version of 3), Resistance etc.

Fighting game diehards want Soul Calibur 4, VF 5 etc. not stuff like Dragonball etc.

Sports sims are dumbed down on the Wii, lacking HD graphics which really matter in Sim games since there goal is to emulate the real thing etc. many are missing (like NCAA Football).

But the main point is that HUGE fans of the genres I listed aren't going to be very happy with the Wii offerings in the genre's I listed "no" for. Just like huge platformer fans would be let down by the 360's offerings. Doesn't mean there are no games in said genres on the particular platform, just that it's a pretty sucky offering for die hard fans fo that genre.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not going to argue the particulars very much, as I never said the Wii doesn't have any games in those genres.

Just that it doesn't have the quality AND quantity of games to keep a HUGE fan of those genre's happy. i.e. Metroid is the only AAA FPS game (and it's not a super traditional FPS, so many Halo fans etc. don't like it), Ghost squad and RE: UC are light gun type games, not FPS. The new Medal of Honor is ok.

A big FPS fan isn't going to buy a Wii for those, they're going with one of the others for Bioshock, Halo, Orange Box, Haze, Call of Duty 2 and 4 (and the non-sucky version of 3), Resistance etc.

Fighting game diehards want Soul Calibur 4, VF 5 etc. not stuff like Dragonball etc.

Sports sims are dumbed down on the Wii, lacking HD graphics which really matter in Sim games since there goal is to emulate the real thing etc. many are missing (like NCAA Football).

But the main point is that HUGE fans of the genres I listed aren't going to be very happy with the Wii offerings in the genre's I listed "no" for. Just like huge platformer fans would be let down by the 360's offerings. Doesn't mean there are no games in said genres on the particular platform, just that it's a pretty sucky offering for die hard fans fo that genre.[/quote]
you are splitting hairs with semantics and excuses...any die hard gamer knows Metroid is up there with ALL of the those shooters...and that no game in the genre of platformers could compare with Mario and adventure with LoZ... add in the fighter SSBM which I personally never liked, but a lot of hardcore gamers love in the fighting game genre...it just seems like you are making excuses with you 'direct/indirect' competition.. the reality is that the Wii is still blowing the socks off of both consoles..
 
[quote name='DJSteel']you are splitting hairs with semantics and excuses...any die hard gamer knows Metroid is up there with ALL of the those shooters...and that no game in the genre of platformers could compare with Mario and adventure with LoZ... add in the fighter of SSBM which I person never liked, but a lot of hardcore gamers love in the fighting game genre...it just seems like you are making excuses with you 'direct/indirect' competition.. the reality is that the Wii is still blowing the socks off of both consoles..[/QUOTE]

Yep Wii is kicking ass. No argument there. Its winning the race AS A RESULT OF NINTENDO'S DECISION TO COMPETE LESS DIRECTLY AND TRY TO EXPAND THE MARKET.

And your preaching to the Choir, as I love Metroid Prime 3.

But it's not going to appeal to the FPS fans mainly into playing online etc.....i.e. the type of people who buy consoles MAINLY just to play FPS games--these people are going PC, 360 or maybe PS3. Wii just sucks in that genre so far, and particular with the online part of it.

Nintendo is doing great, but they're offering a different type of games that primarily appeal to fans of their games and casual gamers. It's hard to dispute that.

Of course they still have some stuff like Manhunt, Madden etc. that appeal to a much broader base, but that's not their stated goal. Their stated goal was to expand the market. And they've succeeded TREMENDOUSLY.

I don't know why so many people are reluctant to acceept that Nintendo is competing less directly and is BACK ON TOP BECAUSE OF IT. There's nothing negative about it.

Nintendo should be applauded for thinking outside the box and saving their company with the DS and Wii.

And people need to quit overreading comments, as no one is saying that Wii ISN'T competing, or that it doesn't offer ANY good games in traditional genres.

The focus is just different than that of the PS3/360. And that's a good thing as the last thing the industry needs is a 3rd machine going after the exact same demographics and putting out the exact same types of games.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']i'm not disagreeing with your statement.. just more along the lines of your analysis how you determined it as such...[/QUOTE]

That's fair.

Main point is just that the PS3/360 excel (i.e. have a decent amount of games in the 80% or higher review average) in certain genres that are largely the same across the two machines, and while the Wii has games in these genres, it tends to excel in DIFFERENT genres.

Can you agree with that? If so, then we don't need to get into the individual games within genre debate as personal tastes obfuscates any kind of objective arguments in those cases.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']yeah.. i'm still awaiting a good platform game for a MS system...[/QUOTE]

Me too. Would love a quality platformer with nice 720p graphics as it's one of my favorite genres. :drool:

And I'd like to see some FPS games with online to rival that of Orange Box and Halo 3 that have nice Wiimote controls. The new Medal of Honor sounds like a step in the right direction, but not quite there yet.
 
[quote name='dallow']Kameo?[/QUOTE]

Looks ok, but thought it was boring and generally sucked.

More desiring a straight up platformer like Mario Galaxy with sweet HD graphics. Mario looks good on my HDTV....for a Wii game....but I'd still love a game in the genre with top notch next-gen graphics and gameplay to match.
 
[quote name='dallow']You beat it?[/QUOTE]

Nope, only played a couple hours at a buddies a long time back. Just didn't float my boat. Maybe it gets better, but a game has to grab me right away for me to finish it.

Again, keep in mind that I generally won't play to completion anything I'd give less than a 9.0 to personally. Too many great games, and too little time, to waste them on something that's not blowing me away.
 
Yeah, I wish I had more time for games, so I could delve more into B list games.

But I can't even keep up with playing all the personal AAA games on my radar with a full time job and grad school.

Though, honestly, I'd say I enjoy gaming more now than I did in the past whenI had more time and played more games. Too many times I'd get disenfranchised and sick of games from playing a bunch of B list stuff that wasn't doing it for me much.

Now I pretty much uniformly enjoy my gaming time since I'm sticking to stuff I try and love rather than slogging through games that are just "ok" to me. *shug*

So I guess it's really my gain rather than loss. :D
 
I really enjoyed Kameo it was a very good platformer for the 360 sadly its pretty much the only...platformer...on the 360 :(.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top