Support NeoGAF

[liuelson]

...the traditional model of technology adoption (as I understand it): get early adopters early, get a critical mass of marketshare, and use the network effect to drive adoption up the saturation curve.

Isn't that what he posted? The typical strategy being more top-down, and following the gist of your understanding?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Nintendo seems to be following a traditional technology adoption curve. It's just that they decided not to differentiate the market by price.

Looking at historical adoption of consoles, it seems like hardware manufacturers pursued different market segments based on price. When a particular market segment saturated (ie "people willing to buy a game console at $350"), the manufacturer lowered the price and pursued the next market segment (ie "people willing to buy a game console at $300"). To a certain extent, that still seems to be the strategy for MS and Sony now.

Nintendo wanted to start at mass market pricing from the very beginning - so they sacrificed the targeted pursuit of higher-priced market segments and compressed the adoption curve. This, combined with supply constraints, makes it very difficult to analyze the Wii market. We have no idea how many traditional early adopters there are, or what the equilibrium weekly hardware sales rate is.

I would argue that investment decisions are about risk management. Because all of those early adopter market segments have been "lumped together" with the mass market adoption of the Wii, I'm not sure there's enough data about the Wii userbase to help 3rd party publishers analyze their risks very well.

Edit:

To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

Good point. I'm still thinking in terms of technology adoption, which in this case, would imply that MS and Sony will come out with motion controllers. Your point is that Nintendo has redefined the relevant market to put video games in the context of entertainment, rather than the context of technology. Clearly, the entertainment market functions differently than the technology market - although one can still think in terms of early adopters creating a critical mass and driving acceptance of an entertainment medium (rap music?) to the mainstream.

 

[bigmakstudios]

So... you've never played Wii Sports. I would love to play against you though (damn Nintendo for not making it online!), I'd love to see the consternation as every ball you try to return goes wildly off course because of my superior spin control and excellent timin- I mean waggle on cue skills.

Yes. I have. Read my post carefully. I said that it isn't separate from racket swings. Running would be separate from racket swings.

 

[LCGeek]

You sir are smart. Post of the day

Needs to be the post of the month. Even being a tech mind pc elitst gamer tech has became far too important to actual gaming that evolves from it predcessors.

 

[kame-sennin]

Yes. I have. Read my post carefully. I said that it isn't separate from racket swings. Running would be separate from racket swings.

Yea, I see what you mean. But from my perspective, the "depth" of Wii Sports comes from the nuance in swings. For example, no two people throw a bowling ball the same way. No matter what you do, technically the only gameplay mechanic is to throw the ball down the lane. But, the speed at which you throw the ball, how long you wait before you release the ball, and especially, the degree of rotation (or lack thereof) in your wrist - and which way that rotation turns - can result in countless variations. Mastering these subtle adjustments is what separates pro players from noobs who "can't get the ball to go straight!". When you do master those techniques, the game takes on an entirely new level of difficulty, and your options for getting strikes and knocking down spares multiplies. The more you put in to Wii Sports, the more it gives back.

/Wii Sports defense force.

 

[Gaborn]

Edit:


Good point. I'm still thinking in terms of technology adoption, which in this case, would imply that MS and Sony will come out with motion controllers. Your point is that Nintendo has redefined the relevant market to put video games in the context of entertainment, rather than the context of technology. Clearly, the entertainment market functions differently than the technology market - although one can still think in terms of early adopters creating a critical mass and driving acceptance of an entertainment medium (rap music?) to the mainstream.

Umm.... since when have video games EVER been about technology generally? I mean, in general sure, there are leaps in technological prowess with each generation, but that doesn't mean that the core focus of videogame consoles has EVER been the technology aspect about it, it's about the GAMES themselves and creating an entertaining and compelling experience. What you're arguing is the rise of the IMax is making movies a technological market rather than an entertainment market - not true. Or that because Sony and Microsoft want to throw the kitchen sink into their systems so you can do just about anything and everything that it makes it less about games and more about the technology. Or that somehow graphics are more important than new leaps in game play. That somehow the NES's graphical superiority over the Atari 2600 was more important to it's success than it's controller and the D-pad.

If anything, Nintendo isn't shifting the market to being entertainment based, Sony and Microsoft are failing to evolve the market to a broader TECHNOLOGICAL market.

 

[The Hermit]

Yeah, I´m also posting to congratulate kame-sennin for posting one of the best overviews of today´s gaming market. Loved the analogy too!

 

[titiklabingapat]

To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

I'll keep this in mind when I open my own business someday and take over th world

 

[LCGeek]

Umm.... since when have video games EVER been about technology generally? I mean, in general sure, there are leaps in technological prowess with each generation, but that doesn't mean that the core focus of videogame consoles has EVER been the technology aspect about it, it's about the GAMES themselves and creating an entertaining and compelling experience. What you're arguing is the rise of the IMax is making movies a technological market rather than an entertainment market - not true. Or that because Sony and Microsoft want to throw the kitchen sink into their systems so you can do just about anything and everything that it makes it less about games and more about the technology. Or that somehow graphics are more important than new leaps in game play. That somehow the NES's graphical superiority over the Atari 2600 was more important to it's success than it's controller and the D-pad.

If anything, Nintendo isn't shifting the market to being entertainment based, Sony and Microsoft are failing to evolve the market to a broader TECHNOLOGICAL market.

Tech has always played a vital role especially when the 2d era really took off. Better tech gave us the 6 button genesis controller and the snes pad. Better tech allowed 2d game to show rich lush worlds of the artists that even today still stand up better than the early 3d crap we saw and still see even in the Wii. Tech is more than the actual hardware we always talk it can also be the software and what you can do with the software with the more power one has. To say it doesn't play a role is to ignore what a love of devs/consumers always wish they had more in console gaming or gaming as a whole.

I think more agree but they like to see useful management of tech. Devs squander all the power of the last 2 gens on graphics and until it stops I feel games will be severely limited. I would rather see improvements in animation, ai, and physics that simply won't happen till graphical budgets make up about 25-45% of what the power of hardware is used for. I hope next gen that all manufacturers call a end to this bs of graphical insanity and ask publishers devs focus on aspects of gaming that are clearly at this point not being upgraded with the time like graphics are.

 

[Arde5643]

There's one other thing motion controls in the WiiMote has brought forth to changing a bit on how games are played.

Not only Nintendo has shown it, but also some 3rd parties:

WiiSports : the original case of how motion controls can benefit mini-games and simple sports actions

Godfather/No More Heroes : both titles show how visceral and immersive it was to do the motion that does the fatality/action movements (imagine how much more visceral the sawing in Gears of War would have been if it was accompanied with a simple motion control waggle)

Mario Kart Wii : not only does it show how motion control helps the immersiveness of racing games, it also shows that cheap peripherals (like the Wii wheel) can help the immersiveness of certain actions if done right.


I think using motion control to make playing games more fun goes hand in hand with what Kame-sennin posted. Along the way, most developers/hardware manufacturers/publishers and even some gamers forgot the fun in playing videogames and got more interested in physics and graphics engines.

The easiest point to make is probably to compare Portal with Crysis.
Both are games that tout physics as important to the game - but whereas Portal actually uses physics to enhance the gameplay, Crysis was more comfortable using physics as more of a eye-candy feature.
And from what gamers chose as the most fun they had playing, it's kinda obvious which one net the most positive responses.

 

[milanbaros]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

Lol, this post makes building a world dominant company look easy. Good post.

 

[Deku]

The easiest point to make is probably to compare Portal with Crysis.
Both are games that tout physics as important to the game - but whereas Portal actually uses physics to enhance the gameplay, Crysis was more comfortable using physics as more of a eye-candy feature.
And from what gamers chose as the most fun they had playing, it's kinda obvious which one net the most positive responses.

Crysis would not have been made either without significant financial backing from the graphics card manufacturers whose interest was getting people to upgrade and buy technology, and NOT to entertain people or even to create a sustainable platform for future releases. They just want to see the sales roll in and move on to the next generation cards in 6 months. And you wonder how the excesses in the games industry of the early 80s lead to the collapse of that Industry.

In anycase, most discussions about next-gen physics usually comes down to a game using physics for eye candy. Very few games actually use it for gameplay. So the point is always lost to me.

 

[Gaborn]

Tech has always played a vital role especially when the 2d era really took off. Better tech gave us the 6 button genesis controller and the snes pad. Better tech allowed 2d game to show rich lush worlds of the artists that even today still stand up better than the early 3d crap we saw and still see even in the Wii. Tech is more than the actual hardware we always talk it can also be the software and what you can do with the software with the more power one has. To say it doesn't play a role is to ignore what a love of devs/consumers always wish they had more in console gaming or gaming as a whole.

But there was no technological reason Nintendo COULDN'T have made the NES controller have 6 buttons, I agree about the evolution from NES to SNES, but that wasn't the fundamental POINT of it, it wasn't technology for technology's sake, it was technology needed to improve the quality of the GAMING experience. The technological leaps wouldn't have happened if it didn't offer a tangible benefit TO that.

I think more agree but they like to see useful management of tech. Devs squander all the power of the last 2 gens on graphics and until it stops I feel games will be severely limited. I would rather see improvements in animation, ai, and physics that simply won't happen till graphical budgets make up about 25-45% of what the power of hardware is used for. I hope next gen that all manufacturers call a end to this bs of graphical insanity and ask publishers devs focus on aspects of gaming that are clearly at this point not being upgraded with the time like graphics are.

This I agree with, I mean, I'm not saying technology has no place, I'm just saying that fundamentally the industry is about providing as entertaining an experience as possible rather than as tech savvy an experience as possible.

 

[liuelson]

Umm.... since when have video games EVER been about technology generally? I mean, in general sure, there are leaps in technological prowess with each generation, but that doesn't mean that the core focus of videogame consoles has EVER been the technology aspect about it, it's about the GAMES themselves and creating an entertaining and compelling experience.

I apologize for imprecise wording. When I say that Nintendo was placing video games in the context of entertainment rather than technology, I was trying to express my opinion that Nintendo was trying to position video games to more directly compete with movies, TV, music, other forms of entertainment. I think that traditionally, console manufacturers were more focused on competition with other video game consoles.

If anything, Nintendo isn't shifting the market to being entertainment based, Sony and Microsoft are failing to evolve the market to a broader TECHNOLOGICAL market.

I think we're probably saying something very similar here - just problems understanding what we each mean by entertainment market v. technology market.

 

[Terrell]

Yep, my only concern was re the difficulty of the questions. When the only negative impressions about difficulty was that some questions may be too hard for little kids (even the game's "Easy" questions) I ordered it. Kind of strange that the review average is so low when I read even the "low" reviews but I guess I'll just have to decide for myself.

Love trivia games. I sort of forgot about it when it came out but this week's GFW Radio+my upcoming vacation reminded me.

EDIT: But I'm still waiting for my new-gen YDKJ of course. The Ride will never be topped I feel.

I hear ya, man. The Ride was the most awesome thing ever... why didn't Jellyvision make expansion packs for THAT game?! Lousy Volume 2 got all the expansion pack love.

 

[AstroLad]

I hear ya, man. The Ride was the most awesome thing ever... why didn't Jellyvision make expansion packs for THAT game?! Lousy Volume 2 got all the expansion pack love.

Really sad that Jellyvision went out of game development almost entirely (they still do release weekly YDKJs--which are actually quite good--on their site). Seems that the style of their games games would be perfectly suited to the Wii/PSN/XBLA "casual adult" markets. :/

 

[mugwhump]

Since when has angularity based on timing been a gameplay mechanic? wtf? That's all related to timing. There is only one gameplay mechanic in Wii Sports tennis: returning the tennis ball with your racket by waggling at the right time. Serving needn't even be user controlled, considering that serves can't be directed by the player. These are the sorts of elements that makes Wii Sports a casual game, and GTA 4 a hardcore game.

So you don't even know how to play the game you're criticizing?

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Crysis would not have been made either without significant financial backing from the graphics card manufacturers whose interest was getting people to upgrade and buy technology, and NOT to entertain people or even to create a sustainable platform for future releases. They just want to see the sales roll in and move on to the next generation cards in 6 months. And you wonder how the excesses in the games industry of the early 80s lead to the collapse of that Industry.

In anycase, most discussions about next-gen physics usually comes down to a game using physics for eye candy. Very few games actually use it for gameplay. So the point is always lost to me.

i dunno tho, the euphoria in gta4 helps like when your drunk and hit an object sometimes youll fall or just stumble depending on how your body is positioned, or if a car hits you mebbe youll just kinda bobble/stumble a bit or actually get thrown, so in that respect the physics being used effect gameplay, and <eyecandy > yes it looks ALOT more realistic < /eyecandy > .

 

[mepaco]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.

To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

This is an absolutely wonderful post. The only thing I would add is that in the case of the video game industry it is even more important to grow at the low end. While in most areas of the US we have no choice but to own cars, entertainment dollars can be spent in a multitude of ways. As the cost of game development rises, it is imperative to bring people in at the low end in the hopes that a small percentage will move up and start buying those souped up rides. Otherwise, I don't see how the group of so called "hardcore" gamers can grow fast enough to keep up with the costs the industry is putting on itself.

 

[F#A#Oo]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.

To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

HOLY...

 

[Parl]

So to sum things up, it had been claimed for over a year that GTA was supposed to change the hardware landscape, and it did bollocks all.

 

[Mithos Yggdrasill]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

Very interesting point of view. Well explained and well justified.

Yea, I see what you mean. But from my perspective, the "depth" of Wii Sports comes from the nuance in swings. For example, no two people throw a bowling ball the same way. No matter what you do, technically the only gameplay mechanic is to throw the ball down the lane. But, the speed at which you throw the ball, how long you wait before you release the ball, and especially, the degree of rotation (or lack thereof) in your wrist - and which way that rotation turns - can result in countless variations. Mastering these subtle adjustments is what separates pro players from noobs who "can't get the ball to go straight!". When you do master those techniques, the game takes on an entirely new level of difficulty, and your options for getting strikes and knocking down spares multiplies. The more you put in to Wii Sports, the more it gives back.

/Wii Sports defense force.

A statistically point fo view. A Boltzmann-like distribution of n-events. In our case, the number of move are the events. Interesting.

 

[Gallagher]

Wow. One of the smartest posts I've read, well ever. It's amazing how hard it is for some to understand wtf is going on in game industry, and why Sony and MS are in the position they currently are, and why Nintendo is where it is now.

Quoted for truth

 

[F#A#Oo]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

 

[Parl]

Very interesting point of view. Well explained and well justified

Seems like a bite-sized version of this.

If you've got time on your hands, I think these two articles are an interesting read, and an insightful view of Nintendo's overall strategy. I'm awaiting the next article in the series.

 

[Parl]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

:lol That was amazing. I pissed myself when all that money ejaculated out of the Wii.

 

[Saint Gregory]

And to think I once supported nuking this thread from orbit. The last few pages have had some brilliant analysis of what's going on in the market. More NPD threads should turn out like this.

 

[Wyndstryker]

Whole bunch of text that everyone above quoted at some point.

You sir deserve a sage tag or something.

 

[kame-sennin]

Seems like a bite-sized version of this.

If you've got time on your hands, I think these two articles are an interesting read, and an insightful view of Nintendo's overall strategy. I'm awaiting the next article in the series.

Basically. The second article especially has an excellent explanation of how Nintendo will move up market.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

You don't even seem to know what you're arguing here.

Lighting, animation, charatcer detail, ragdoll physics are aesthetic changes, not gameplay changes.

The new style of lockons, the cover system and the new police 'sphere of influence' are gameplay changes, and they absolutely do not require the technical horsepower of HD consoles to have occurred.

In absolute gameplay terms, I haven't seen anything in GTA4 that not only would be impossible on a Wii, but wasn't already done in previous GTAs.

That's not saying it's a bad game - I'm still enjoying it - but you're deluding yourself if you really think that in terms of gameplay it does anything that wasn't possible in 'last gen'.

Which I guess is really where HD consoles are failing on sales terms - I can count on the fingers of one hand games which have core gameplay mechanics I do not think would have been possible on a last gen console.

As long as the only improvements over the games people were playing on a PS2 are purely aesthetic, the case arguing for HD consoles over a Wii by anyone except graphics whores becomes harder outside of the bitter tears about 'casuals killing games' displayed in this thread.

But if they fall differently, each time I shoot them, it's totally different each time. *shakes head*

 

[titiklabingapat]

And to think I once supported nuking this thread from orbit. The last few pages have had some brilliant analysis of what's going on in the market. More NPD threads should turn out like this.

Yeah, I always love the dying breath of NPD threads. I love reading the serious analysis for the month.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Seems like a bite-sized version of this.

If you've got time on your hands, I think these two articles are an interesting read, and an insightful view of Nintendo's overall strategy. I'm awaiting the next article in the series.

Lapsed again?

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Pressing a button is hardcore, moving is casual. So obviously using the Wii Sports menu is hardcore since it involves button-pressing, but the Tennis game itself is casual. Considering the other sports involved in the package use buttons more than Tennis does, I guess that means Wii Sports is, in fact, hardcore for the most part.

Consider me stunned.

You don't move in Wii Sports Tennis=hardcore. You do, however move in SMB, Virtual Fighter and WoW=casual.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

I get the feeling you'll start talking about Australian wine any minute not. Lapsed, is that you? You got another book recommendation?

Edit: damn you, BMF for taking my thunder.

Thank god, I got thru this thread. Now, I can post with everybody else instead of resurrecting old posts. It's like Back to the Future for me.

 

[Flakster99]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

Hehe. Should have used the Benny Hill music, well done never the less.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

WTF is this shit. :lol

 

[Saint Gregory]

Yeah, I always love the dying breath of NPD threads. I love reading the serious analysis for the month.

Do they often end up like this? I usually bail out somewhere between the anger and acceptance and never return.

 

[hooligan]

This, and the rest of your post is an excellent point. It will be very difficult for third parties to shift philosophy, and some will not be able to handle the transition. Sega is one of the few third parties that understands Nintendo's strategy. Their games appear to be moving up market more or less from launch to the present (MB:BB, M&S>>>Mad World, S&SR). Other companies, like EA misinterpret Nintendo's strategy. They believe Nintendo is "settling" for the casual market because the games are cheaper to produce. Thus they create "casual divisions" to make cheap games thinking this will satiate the new market. They do not realize that upstreaming is only possible if the casual games are of quality and contain a certain amount of depth. This is necessary if new gamers are to be enticed to move further up market.



To address your first point, you are absolutely right. But the videogame industry is not a technology industry, it is an entertainment industry. This is why the business model you outlined, the business model put forth by Sony and MS, is such a dangerous one. As I said in the last post addressing this issue, the market is like a pyramid. The most avid consumers represent the top of that pyramid, and thus are the smallest in number. Relying on the smallest market section to carry your product is a risky strategy.

There is another pitfall in targeting the top of the market/core user. That is overshooting the needs of the market as a whole. Let's compare the American muscle cars of the 1970's to the economy cars coming out of Japan at that time period. Muscle cars had high performance engines that provided excellent acceleration and high top speeds. Japanese sedans were slower, smaller, and less impressive overall. Thirty years later, Toyota is on the cusp of becoming the leading auto maker in the world. Why? Because American cars overshot the market. They provided excellent performance engines, but the automobile industry is not a performance industry, it is a transportation industry. The high performance of American cars overshot the needs of the American market. On the other hand, the seemingly low quality Japanese cars had an important feature, low fuel consumption. This feature was essential to transportation, especially for low end users who did not want to spend a lot of money on their cars (the down market). Technologically speaking, the Japanese cars were inferior, but they perfectly targeted the needs of the casual automobile owner. Only the upmarket user, the car enthusiast, was disappointed with the low performance of these Japanese vehicles. However, thirty years later, Toyota is releasing high performance SUVs. They have been moving up market all this time, operating at lower costs than their American competitors, making larger profits, and steeling market share out from under GM and Ford.

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that. I simply wanted to provide an example of how it's more economically viable for both the corporation and the consumer to move up market rather than down market, and that this is the path that many of the most successful companies have taken. Other examples are VHS vs Betamax, VHS vs Lazerdisk, MP3s vs, CDs, and perhaps, Youtube and digital distribution vs. Blue Ray and high def.

Your post has some good points about the auto industry but you're oversimplifying what has happened and, overall, the car business probably bears little or no relevance to the videogame market.
Japanese automakers gained market share in the 1970's because they consumed less fuel, yes, but this feature wasn't valued until an external macroeconomic event happened, the 1970's oil crisis. In addition the Japanese cars were priced cheaper yet still retained high build quality. That said, Japanese cars still didn't crush U.S. cars they simply improved from totally irrelevant to somewhat relevant. In the 1980's Japanese auto makers continued to achieve modest market share growth vis a vis the Big 3 (GM. Ford, Chrysler) but with the abatement of the oil crisis they were competing more on price and quality than on fuel consumption.
In the late 1980's - 1990's, however, the cost advantage of the Japanese competitors really caught up to the bloated, unionized, and highly pensioned American automaker's workforce. For the same price as American cars, Japanese cars had more features and were actually gaining a reputation of higher reliability. The one thing holding the Big 3 together during the mid-late 90's was the brief (and now quickly dying) SUV fad which served to temporarily boost the profitability of the American manufacturers.
Today, the Big 3 are in serious financial trouble and are still trying to restructure their workforce to even come close to competing with the Japanese autos on labor costs. Factor in a universal reputation for inferior build quality and they have a big uphill battle ahead of them. Yet with all these headwinds, it was only just last year that Toyota exceeded GM as the world's largest car maker for a brief quarter or two, and the two are just now roughly equal in U.S. market share. But certainly Toyota has come a long way.
How all this relates to videogames? It doesn't. These are vastly different markets. The car industry is a fully mature, mega market affected by numerous external factors such as oil prices, environmental concerns, suburbanization of America, and overall work/lifestyle habits of every American. The car itself, is a "necessary good" for most middle class and higher citizens. Videogames? As long as they seem like they have existed, it is still considered a totally niche, infant industry. The technology is still rapidly evolving, the product pricing has very high volatility, and the market leaders swap positions every 3 years. About the only thing videogames and cars have in common is they both rapidly depreciate the second you walk out of the store.
In terms of "overshooting" you probably have a point. But Microsoft and Sony could never have foreseen the terrible economy we have today. If the economy was in high gear, many of those DS and Wii dollars would instead be PS3 and Xbox 360 dollars. The Wii did benefit from a novel control feature which created its massive hype, but more of its enduring success will be based on its relative price and how the rest of the economy fares. It's a fad for the marginal videogamers who can afford any system and it (along with the DS) is a cost effective solution for the parental units of younger gamers. What? It's a fad for the fringe gamers? Yes. None of my friends who bought a Wii after not having bought a console in 10 yrs play it at all except when a few friends are over who haven't yet seen one.
Finally, the "moving up market corporation and consumer" alike trend is something that might happen in a more mature industry. In videogames each of the Big 3 is in it to win this generation, not plant long term seeds for the next, or next-next generation. The winners and losers are still changing month to month - they are no super established undisputed market leaders. The good news for all of us hardcore gamers is we are in an exciting phase of explosive growth that will be fun as hell.

 

[RagnarokX]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

Ran my npd is right gif a bit too fast, but good compilation :lol

 

[RBH]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

:lol

 

[Fuu]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

Awesome. :lol

 

[Salazar]

Finally, the "moving up market corporation and consumer" alike trend is something that might happen in a more mature industry. In videogames each of the Big 3 is in it to win this generation, not plant long term seeds for the next, or next-next generation. The winners and losers are still changing month to month - they are no super established undisputed market leaders. The good news for all of us hardcore gamers is we are in an exciting phase of explosive growth that will be fun as hell.

And if it all gets too much, the Japanese government can step in to nerf Nintendo Japan-Post style.

 

[Redd]

Seriously the last few(and growing) pages are some of the best views I've read in a long time on Gaf. Keep it up, sorry I'm not contributing that much but great read nonetheless.

 

[mepaco]

Japanese automakers gained market share in the 1970's because they consumed less fuel, yes, but this feature wasn't valued until an external macroeconomic event happened, the 1970's oil crisis. In addition the Japanese cars were priced cheaper yet still retained high build quality.

This is where I think the analogy is strongest; success came by focusing on the basic needs of the market without including lots of essentially unnecessary power.

Anyway, as you state yourself, cars are generally a "necessity good" which makes the more accessible video game console entry even more important. Having to compete with many other forms of entertainment means that many individuals would not otherwise have experience with video games. Now, I agree that most people brought in at this level by Wii Sports, Fit, etc. won't convert to "hardcore" gamers, but a percentage will and that is absolutely necessary for the industry.

Dev costs continue to rise but game prices must remain relatively stable or risk even lower sales for all but the biggest blockbusters (resulting in many of the same old rehashed safe crap we get these days). This means that more games must be sold and without bringing in fresh blood I don't think this will happen quickly enough to allow the industry to continue to grow. I've heard too many stories of people who never played video games starting with Wii Sports and have now picked up Mario Kart to discount the possibility of people "moving up". Nobody is going to make the leap straight into Bioshock but it is a start.

EDIT:
Also, don't discount the positive effect that this type of exposure can have on the industry as a whole. As more adults/parents/lawmakers are exposed to video games in a positive light, some of the ridiculous claims by idiots like Jack Thompson will fall on more deaf ears.

 

[kame-sennin]

Lapsed again?

Um... no. He makes a lot of really good points, but he's also a bit of over the top in a lot of his views. He's also not the only person who understands disruption.

 

[kame-sennin]

Your post has some good points about the auto industry but you're oversimplifying what has happened and, overall, the car business probably bears little or no relevance to the videogame market.

Absolutely. I was only intending to make a brief analogy. Also, as I stated:

I don't want to derail the thread with an auto debate, so if you don't think the above was analogous, just say so and we'll leave it at that.

So I'll skip the part of your post that pertains to that, however, your in depth explanations seem from my perspective to bolster my argument - I think Mepaco summed it up well.

In terms of "overshooting" you probably have a point. But Microsoft and Sony could never have foreseen the terrible economy we have today. If the economy was in high gear, many of those DS and Wii dollars would instead be PS3 and Xbox 360 dollars.

The situation Sony and Microsoft are facing today was one Iwata warned about prior to the Wii launch.

"Though I'm aware this may be misunderstood, Nintendo is not working on a next-generation console. "Next-generation" implies that the console is an extension of previous installments. We believe that extending our current line will not lead to larger markets, and could possibly even lead to smaller markets. We need to introduce innovative appeal if we want to increase the number of people enjoying games." - Iwata 2006

Iwata realized that as the market narrowed it's focus, it risked losing casual gamers "on the fringes" of the market. He also warned that advances in graphics had reached a "saturation point". Most gamers misinterpreted this to mean that he was insinuating graphics had gone as far as they could go. However, he was not referring to visual fidelity, but to diminishing financial returns. Each leap in graphical technology - both for the developers and consumers - requires a progressively larger leap in cost. Nintendo stepped out of the technological race because they realized that they would not get a substantial return on investment.

Moreover, the PS3 and Xbox360 are not suffering because of the economy, at least not primarily. The 360 failed to hit its first to 10 million world wide goal prior to the economic downturn. It is also struggling in Europe where it is cheaper than the Wii (and where the euro is stronger than the dollar).

The Wii did benefit from a novel control feature which created its massive hype, but more of its enduring success will be based on its relative price and how the rest of the economy fares. It's a fad for the marginal videogamers who can afford any system and it (along with the DS) is a cost effective solution for the parental units of younger gamers. What? It's a fad for the fringe gamers? Yes. None of my friends who bought a Wii after not having bought a console in 10 yrs play it at all except when a few friends are over who haven't yet seen one.

I can not argue with your anecdotal evidence. Only sales will bare out whether or not the Wii can successfully move up market, turning some of their new customers into more avid gamers. But with regard to the bold, I would argue that price was only a small factor. The low price of the Wii is just one of the many features that makes it appealing to non-gamers. The low price is representative of Nintendo's philosophy of having "low barriers of entry". The Wii is easy to understand, easy to play, and easy to buy. However, the price of Wii consoles on ebay a year and a half after launch, indicate that a low price is not the Wii's most important feature.

Finally, the "moving up market corporation and consumer" alike trend is something that might happen in a more mature industry. In videogames each of the Big 3 is in it to win this generation, not plant long term seeds for the next, or next-next generation. The winners and losers are still changing month to month - they are no super established undisputed market leaders. The good news for all of us hardcore gamers is we are in an exciting phase of explosive growth that will be fun as hell.

Nintendo is, and so are Microsoft and Sony for that matter. Nintendo started developing the Wii remote in 2003. When asked in the mid-nineties who the Playstation's biggest threat would be, Kutaragi responded "Microsoft". And, MS has stated many times that they are in the second phase of a three console strategy. All of these companies are too large to change strategies and react on a month to month basis. Business models are planned out years in advance. That's why the Wii has won (past tense), and why it is positioned best for the next generation. This is why Microsoft is so reluctant to price drop. They are aware that the loss leading strategy did not work out this gen, and they are not going to burn more money trying to change things at the eleventh hour. The best strategy is to turn a profit while they can, and attempt to reposition the brand for next gen.

 

[CitizenCope]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

Just awesome.:lol

 

[Struct09]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

:lol I hope we get one of these every month

 

[norinrad21]

Nintendo forever

 

[The Hermit]

:lol I hope we get one of these every month

Yeah the song fits perfectly!

 

[AdventureRacing]

Has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OlIXlBfKE

:lol

Nice summary of all the gifs in this thread...:lol

:lol