The Shrine

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162770

Not many would have predicted it a year ago, least of all that it would happen this fast: The Financial Times reports that the Wii has surpassed Microsoft's Xbox 360 in global sales. It's the first time in 17 years -- during the dominate 16 bit days of the SNES -- that Nintendo sits at the top spot of the console market.

The report is based on sales figures from Enterbrain in Japan, NPD Group in the US and GfK of Germany, which tracks European sales. Sales figures from each console's launch date through the end of July (and the end of August in Japan) were added up, with the Wii just barely edging out the 360: 9 million for the Wii, 8.9 million for the 360, and 3.7 million for the PlayStation 3.

That's with the 360 having a head-start of a full year. The Wii, in fact, hasn't even been out a full year. Nintendo surpassed Sony in global market share in July.

Analysts in the story attribute the success to a cheaper price tag, the 360's weak presence in the Japanese market, and the fact that Nintendo's sales continued to soar during the summer while the 360 and PS3 sagged.

It'll be very interesting to see how all three companies spin the news when the August NPD numbers come out.

Wow, talk about terrible reporting. 17 years ago was September 1990, before the SNES was even released =P

The Seeker wrote:Wow, talk about terrible reporting. 17 years ago was September 1990, before the SNES was even released =P

Yeah, I got mine in August 1991. Guess that would mean it's been close to 12 years or so, since the PSX was released. Don't have the exact numbers, but I believe sometime in 1994 they finally caught Sega (in America at least; I think they had them worldwide even before that)

And now the time comes to see who sells more consoles before Christmas. It's Halo 3 vs Mario Galaxy! Fight fight fight!


And it must have been 1996 that the SNES finally fell off first place in sales. Who's looking into this?

I think you're gonna see the 360 outsell the Wii from October through December. I mean, I love my Wii and the games comin' are awesome (and Metroid), but it's only 3 or 4 really big titles. Are Metroid 3, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Bros (MAYBE RE: Chronicles) gonna push more systems than Assassin's Creed, Rock Band, Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect? You'll also have many more AA and A titles coming onto the 360; sheer volume due to the fact it's been out longer. Not to mention that GH3 will likely be a far greater seller on 360 than Wii as well.

Though the Wii's got a surprisingly long lasting appeal. I though the summer would really slow it down with no real huge titles since Mario Party 8 but man have I been proven wrong. And those are three HUGE titles (we'll see how Metroid sells in September and October; Prime 2 was a big disappointment sales-wise) that are coming out. But will they be enough to stave off the Halo juggernaut? That's really up to Mario Galaxy IMO. As great as Smash Bros is, they need that Mario game to be a huge hit. It's very, very important.

It'll be an interesting battle this Xmas.

On a related note, the PS3 might have actually gotten another title that might actually be worth it this week: Heavenly Sword came out on Tuesday. That's what, 3 titles that may actually be worth the price they're being charged? This is why it's gonna lag big-time this Xmas IMO. I think they start narrowing the gap next year after the next price drop and 2008 Xmas is theirs IMO. But they're basically not a factor right now. Even though there are signs that they are narrowing the gap (in US it's down to 3 to 1 and Japan about the same or 4 to 1 for the Wii), it's still pretty damned big.

I think the Wii will continue to outsell the other systems, because I think Nintendo has succeeded in pulling in casuals. On the other hand, I think the Wii will have about the same amount of hardcore games as the GameCube.

I have none, because I have no time to play games, and I just couldn't justify the expense. Two months ago, if I could have a system, my choice would have been a Wii. (Metroid, Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy.) But now, Bioshock makes me want a 360 more than I wanted a Wii.

It is difficult to say with the PS3, but I can't see the Xbox 360 selling more than about 1/3rd the units of Wii this Holiday season unless there is some unexpected shipment disaster on Nintendo's end.

As justification for my expectation:

Looking at the sales data which they took from the last quarterly release: It took Wii 7 months to reach 9 million sales, and it took Xbox 360 19 months to reach 8.9 million. This is during a period when supply was an issue for the Wii, and it sold about three times as quickly. Xbox 360 sales have actually dropped off considerably from last year despight having even more games available.

Next, the games being released for Xbox target a much smaller portion of the gaming audience than those being released on Wii. Wii has a much more mainstream target, its real rival is the Sony brand which traditionally targets a more mainstream audience. The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

The Seeker wrote:Wii has a much more mainstream target, its real rival is the Sony brand which traditionally targets a more mainstream audience.

Only if you're counting the PS2, which I'm sure you are. Nintendo does not have to worry about PS3 sales at all right now.



How pissed off are you right now if you're Sony and Rockstar has delayed GTA4 until next year? How many systems were they hoping they'd sell on that alone?

Kupek wrote:I think the Wii will continue to outsell the other systems, because I think Nintendo has succeeded in pulling in casuals. On the other hand, I think the Wii will have about the same amount of hardcore games as the GameCube.

I have none, because I have no time to play games, and I just couldn't justify the expense. Two months ago, if I could have a system, my choice would have been a Wii. (Metroid, Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy.) But now, Bioshock makes me want a 360 more than I wanted a Wii.

If you only want a 360 'cause of Bioshock, then get it for the PC and get the Wii. Bioshock wasn't the first reason to get a 360 IMO

Zeus wrote:If you only want a 360 'cause of Bioshock, then get it for the PC and get the Wii. Bioshock wasn't the first reason to get a 360 IMO

Been there, done that. Just get the goddamn 360. There is every reason why you want to get the 360.

Hell, during this fire BS, I'm letting my sister borrow my Wii while I play 360. Why? I barely have any games to play on my Wii. But, hey, if Nintendo wants to sell numbers on Tennis and Boxing games alone, so be it. (Seriously, what the hell is the most popular game for the casuals, anyway?)

I doubt my four year old laptop can handle Bioshock. That, and Crackdown initially got my attention, and I hear the kids like this Halo thing.

August 2007
Wii = 403,600
DS = 383,300
360 = 276,700
PS2 = 202,000
PSP = 151,200
PS3 = 130,600

From NPD,

Wii is ahead of DS for the second month in a row as supplies continue to be stronger, Xbox 360's early August price drop seems to have had a positive effect on sales similar to the PS3 last month (which almost doubled PS3 sales from June to July).

Well, if the 360 was $200, I'm sure it would surpass the Wii. Big shit.

I know I probably won't be buying anything for the Wii until SSBB comes out though I may be picking up Halo 3 and Rock Band/GH3 are a must on my 360.

Of course, I spend more than enough on DS games and Zelda (unless it got delayed again) and Phoenix Wright come out in October.

The Seeker wrote:The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

Microsoft only targets whites. Fuckin racists.


They're really pushing it hard in Japan, but those xenophobes are too busy touching underage witches or playing shitty mech games.

Black Lotus wrote:They're really pushing it hard in Japan, but those xenophobes are too busy touching underage witches

Who isn't???

SineSwiper wrote:Well, if the 360 was $200, I'm sure it would surpass the Wii. Big shit.

No, I don't think it would. That's the point I was trying to make: I think Nintendo is actually pulling in people who ordinarily wouldn't buy a game system.

The 360 at $200 would be a much less powerful system then it currently is.

The system is a little overpowered for this point in time.

Black Lotus wrote:

The Seeker wrote:The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

Microsoft only targets whites. Fuckin racists.


They're really pushing it hard in Japan, but those xenophobes are too busy touching underage witches or playing shitty mech games.

In European markets outside of the UK it is failing to sell as well. It sells a few hundred thousand in countries like Germany, Spain, and France where the PSX, DS, GBA, and PS2 sold millions (about 40 million PSX units, and 40 million PS2 units sold in Europe, currently about 16 million DS units as well).

It is all non-English white male markets where the Xbox 360 fails to sell anything substantial.

Lox wrote:I know I probably won't be buying anything for the Wii until SSBB comes out though I may be picking up Halo 3 and Rock Band/GH3 are a must on my 360.

Of course, I spend more than enough on DS games and Zelda (unless it got delayed again) and Phoenix Wright come out in October.

I have about 20 DS games now, it is just a much more convenient system to play than home console, and among the games on it are some of my favourites ever released.

I imagine a big part of the 360's sales declining is their admission a few months ago that "oh yeah... 100% of consoles we've sold so far are defective-- here's an extra 2 year warranty". While it was a ballsy and welcome statement from MS (since most 360 gamers knew this already) I can bet you it really hurt their sales going forward-- hence the addition of HDMI into the platinum consoles and the $50 price drop.

Kupek wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Well, if the 360 was $200, I'm sure it would surpass the Wii. Big shit.

No, I don't think it would. That's the point I was trying to make: I think Nintendo is actually pulling in people who ordinarily wouldn't buy a game system.

Seems to be the case based on all the reports (not just the Nintendo one)

On a side note, the Wii has sold 4M in US vs 6.4M 360s

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/820/820122p1.html

Wii is currently outpacing the 360 at about 150k units a month or so, so at the current pace, they still need over a year to catch them. And that's before this Xmas. Might be a couple of years before they catch up and that's not including the cannibalization of the sales of both systems should the PS3 drop to a reasonable prie

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Well, if the 360 was $200, I'm sure it would surpass the Wii. Big shit.

No, I don't think it would. That's the point I was trying to make: I think Nintendo is actually pulling in people who ordinarily wouldn't buy a game system.

Seems to be the case based on all the reports (not just the Nintendo one)

On a side note, the Wii has sold 4M in US vs 6.4M 360s

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/820/820122p1.html

Wii is currently outpacing the 360 at about 150k units a month or so, so at the current pace, they still need over a year to catch them. And that's before this Xmas. Might be a couple of years before they catch up and that's not including the cannibalization of the sales of both systems should the PS3 drop to a reasonable prie

The gap will be much much higher during the holiday season if the supply is there. For example, the gap between DS and PSP was approximately 200K during most of last year, but during November and December it was widened to the millions.

Tessian wrote:I imagine a big part of the 360's sales declining is their admission a few months ago that "oh yeah... 100% of consoles we've sold so far are defective-- here's an extra 2 year warranty". While it was a ballsy and welcome statement from MS (since most 360 gamers knew this already) I can bet you it really hurt their sales going forward-- hence the addition of HDMI into the platinum consoles and the $50 price drop.

They would've had a class action lawsuit if they hadn't made the offer. I would've joined it. Eight months or less isn't an acceptable life for a $400 console.

Honestly, while I would love to believe it's generosity on their part - and it is of a certain kind - they would've been done for in the game industry.

One, you can't sell games when the consoles are broken, and it seems like the failure rate is >50% - pretty significant market share drop there.

Two, you don't make any money on the consoles at all, as selling games is the recoup on the loss-leader consoles - all of us who've been paying attention know this about the game industry, and for those who don't or haven't paid attention, it's easily sourced if you want to hit up Google (I don't have time to link in sources today).

Three, as Seeker has noted so many times so astutely, Microsoft is in the hole on the XBox *and* 360 over the life of the company, to the tune of a few billion. It's a success as a gaming console within the culture but a commercial failure for them, though not necessarily so for their developers. If they gave up now - and gamers wouldn't have forgiven them this magnitude of hardware failure - they'd have had no market credibility and would have had to write the entire thing off as a massive loss.

Four, even if all they wanted to do was cut losses, it would have most likely have fried many of their most important strategic partners in gaming - the developers themselves - if Microsoft were to simply pull out of the space. Massive lack of goodwill, possibly even lawsuits depending on contract relationships.

It's nice that people are getting their consoles back, but it didn't take a moral god to make this particular call. Their hands were pretty tied here, if they ever wanted to play in this space again.

Nev wrote:Two, you don't make any money on the consoles at all, as selling games is the recoup on the loss-leader consoles - all of us who've been paying attention know this about the game industry, and for those who don't or haven't paid attention, it's easily sourced if you want to hit up Google (I don't have time to link in sources today).

Myth.

“We’re making money, not much money but we are making money,” said Yoshihiro Maruyama, executive officer and general manager of the Xbox division of Microsoft Co. Ltd., Microsoft’s Japan division, in an interview with IDG News Service in September this year. (from Nov 2005)

Suck it. The 360 is making $76 per console. PS3 is losing mad money on theirs ($250 to $300). Wii is getting a profit on theirs ($92).

In fact, this is a relatively new concept. A few companies have sold at a loss, but not nearly at the rate of Sony. Sega was the one who invented the idea, and look where their consoles ended up. Now, look where the PS3 is ending up: deep in debt and no games to show for it.

Losing money, especially in the long term, is idiotic. It's okay to lose a little bit of money during launch, but after the first year, if you aren't gaining money, your business model is kinda fucked up.

Microsoft's gaming division has lost over 6 billion on the Xbox brand since the launch of the original Xbox. They have posted a quarterly loss in all of their financials since the launch of the Xbox with the exception of Q4 2004 where they posted a profit of 84 million dollars.

The games division of Microsoft is just a portion of their business, if their reputation is damaged there, it will spill over onto other products. A few billion is a much smaller price to pay then that potential blow to the company. I don't think anyone needs to worry about the Xbox 360 going away anytime soon. The PS3, difficult to say, but it seems to me that it is getting sloppy software released for it.

Well, if anything has been learned from this next generation of consoles, it's that you don't go into a war of attrition. Even if you win, you still lose. It's great for the consumers, but technology ain't free. I can't be certain, but I think the new generation of consoles (oh, probably 5 years down the line) will not be as technologically ahead the affordable technology as this generation.

I think the move to HD was a big factor in the cost as well. Nintendo chose to bow out of HD this round in favor of cost. It has both helped them and hurt them. I think Nintendo lost some developers because of that decision. It's sorta like the N64 decision of not using CDs, but not as amazingly stupid.

And the BluRay/HD-DVD thing? Doesn't even factor in at all. Nobody cares. It was a poor decision on their part to push the technology like that. Technology is invented for a use, not a use invented for technology.

The whole lose money on the hardware thing is pretty irrelevant anyway, because console inventory represents a sunk cost. Unless you plan on bailing out of the whole market you got to keep a few hundred thousand of consoles in stock. You can't simply say well since we lose $500 on a PS3 we'd only call our factory and tell them to turn on the assembly line whenever an order comes in (and hope to recover from the games). So everything a PS3 system solds for is pure profit, because you cannot just break down a PS3 into components and expect to salvage the money back. It doesn't matter if costs $1 or $1000 to make one, you're stuck making a certain amount of systems because otherwise you'd have no visibility/inventory and be doomed anyway.

Now obviously it'd be far easier to recover your investment the cheaper it was to make your system. Sony would be quite happy if every current PS3 in circulation is bought by someone who never bought another PS3 game, because the systems on the shelves is not going to make them any money unsold. Now obviously it becomes a problem if you're somehow able to say find 100 million people willing to buy a PS3 and never buy a game on it, but let's be realistic here. Not to mention selling in such quantities will eventually drive down the price of hardware so that it will become profitable even if no games were ever purchased.

In terms of market share, whether you make or lose money on the console ultimately does not matter unless the losses causes the company to bail out. If you switch Nintendo and Sony's position around, Nintendo will probably turn a profit but then no one would care about them if they only have an installed base of 4 million or whatever PS3 is at. Likewise Sony will be quite happy to be in the lead even if it means continuing to lose $200 or whaetver per system.

SineSwiper wrote:

Nev wrote:Two, you don't make any money on the consoles at all, as selling games is the recoup on the loss-leader consoles - all of us who've been paying attention know this about the game industry, and for those who don't or haven't paid attention, it's easily sourced if you want to hit up Google (I don't have time to link in sources today).

Myth.

“We’re making money, not much money but we are making money,” said Yoshihiro Maruyama, executive officer and general manager of the Xbox division of Microsoft Co. Ltd., Microsoft’s Japan division, in an interview with IDG News Service in September this year. (from Nov 2005)

Suck it. The 360 is making $76 per console. PS3 is losing mad money on theirs ($250 to $300). Wii is getting a profit on theirs ($92).

In fact, this is a relatively new concept. A few companies have sold at a loss, but not nearly at the rate of Sony. Sega was the one who invented the idea, and look where their consoles ended up. Now, look where the PS3 is ending up: deep in debt and no games to show for it.

Losing money, especially in the long term, is idiotic. It's okay to lose a little bit of money during launch, but after the first year, if you aren't gaining money, your business model is kinda fucked up.

You know, Sine, there are so many days I wish I'd just eaten the time cost and kept the maintainership on this board myself. But, whatever, I guess...*laughs*

Got all the respect I really needed out of making this place, really, I guess. So talk to me in whatever tone you want to, I suppose.

Anyway, I make mistakes, but honestly I'm surprised that Microsoft switched up the business model. And good for them. The loss-leader model is a risk, and they'd *really* be eating it on the recall if they weren't making money on the consoles. Guess I should probably do my research before I get into these discussions...

As far as I can see it, though, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft was over a barrel on the recall. And $76 seems kind of like a pretty high margin to expect on a console, really. Maybe this whole thing is just karma for them, which would be fine except that I blew $400 on a system that I still have to go find a UPS station near my house for so I can recoup *my* investment.

Man, I wish Bill Gates had set higher quality assurance standards for that company in the beginning! I bet his smart house crashes all the damn time.

Seraphina wrote:Well, if anything has been learned from this next generation of consoles, it's that you don't go into a war of attrition. Even if you win, you still lose. It's great for the consumers, but technology ain't free. I can't be certain, but I think the new generation of consoles (oh, probably 5 years down the line) will not be as technologically ahead the affordable technology as this generation.

I think the move to HD was a big factor in the cost as well. Nintendo chose to bow out of HD this round in favor of cost. It has both helped them and hurt them. I think Nintendo lost some developers because of that decision. It's sorta like the N64 decision of not using CDs, but not as amazingly stupid.

And the BluRay/HD-DVD thing? Doesn't even factor in at all. Nobody cares. It was a poor decision on their part to push the technology like that. Technology is invented for a use, not a use invented for technology.

That was Sine...

Nev wrote:You know, Sine, there are so many days I wish I'd just eaten the time cost and kept the maintainership on this board myself. But, whatever, I guess...*laughs*

Got all the respect I really needed out of making this place, really, I guess. So talk to me in whatever tone you want to, I suppose. ;)

Hey, I kid because I care. The insult wasn't meant to be offensive.

Nev wrote:As far as I can see it, though, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft was over a barrel on the recall. And $76 seems kind of like a pretty high margin to expect on a console, really. Maybe this whole thing is just karma for them, which would be fine except that I blew $400 on a system that I still have to go find a UPS station near my house for so I can recoup *my* investment.

Again, I think the overheating issue is another factor in the "getting technology too advanced for a system" dilemma. Hopefully, this will be a learning lesson for all parties involved.

Sine wrote: I think the move to HD was a big factor in the cost as well. Nintendo chose to bow out of HD this round in favor of cost. It has both helped them and hurt them. I think Nintendo lost some developers because of that decision. It's sorta like the N64 decision of not using CDs, but not as amazingly stupid.

And the BluRay/HD-DVD thing? Doesn't even factor in at all. Nobody cares. It was a poor decision on their part to push the technology like that. Technology is invented for a use, not a use invented for technology.

The problem is that with the PS2, DVDs had been around for a while and, given the state of the market, they were a sure thing. Blu-Ray has not proven to be a sure thing, what Sony wished to do was get that format in a lot of peoples living rooms using the PS3, only it didn't work. Microsoft made HD-DVD optional, a good thing since it kept the system from being as overpriced as the PS3.

As for Nintendo "bowing out" of the HD TV thing, that is what a lot of sites talking about the PS3 had been saying, but they have more or less been waiting for a more appropriate time to release such a system. At this point in time it is overly expensive to build consoles that take good advantage of HD TVs, and it is also overly expensive to develop games that take good advantage of HD TVs as well. On top of this, HD TV is not the standard, and may not be for quite some time, so it is not a significant marketing point for the vast majority of people.

Did Nintendo lose developers? They did, I can only really think of Factor 5 at the moment, it could be more. They gained a lot of new developers in return. Looking at the release charts: the Wii has the widest range of developers and over 100 games in October and November alone, more than PS3 (35) and Xbox 360 (50) combined.

The Seeker wrote:The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

Sorry, I had to bring this up again. Are you saying that other consoles market more to non-whites in North America than Microsoft and if so, how?

And I'd like to mention again that Microsoft IS signing developers to make JRPGs for Japan. Even if it's a futile effort, they're still trying to gain some of the Japanese market (not whites, not all males).

The Seeker wrote: Did Nintendo lose developers? They did, I can only really think of Factor 5 at the moment, it could be more. They gained a lot of new developers in return. Looking at the release charts: the Wii has the widest range of developers and over 100 games in October and November alone, more than PS3 (35) and Xbox 360 (50) combined.

I love hearing Seeker try to spout off about Wii's 'overwhelming' 3rd party support, complete with dubious web links...yet it never seems to happen. Last I checked, the Wii had maybe 5 more titles out than the PS3...and that's completely ignoring that a large chunk of the Wii's library are PS2 ports/shovelware.

Black Lotus wrote:

The Seeker wrote:The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

Sorry, I had to bring this up again. Are you saying that other consoles market more to non-whites in North America than Microsoft and if so, how?

And I'd like to mention again that Microsoft IS signing developers to make JRPGs for Japan. Even if it's a futile effort, they're still trying to gain some of the Japanese market (not whites, not all males).

That quote you are examining explains the result of Microsoft's direction.

Of course Microsoft is making an attempt to attract other demographs, as there are 75 million+ other potential customers out there. The thing is Microsoft is failing, the competition is putting a much greater amount of resources into other markets.

Why? Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War, Elder Scrolls, and Tom Clancy games are marketed towards white english males. Other large gaming demographs which include female gamers (including English and non English), Japanese, non-English Europeans are not particularly interested in those types games. The games that are directed at other markets on the Xbox 360 are not particularly appealing.

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote: Did Nintendo lose developers? They did, I can only really think of Factor 5 at the moment, it could be more. They gained a lot of new developers in return. Looking at the release charts: the Wii has the widest range of developers and over 100 games in October and November alone, more than PS3 (35) and Xbox 360 (50) combined.

I love hearing Seeker try to spout off about Wii's 'overwhelming' 3rd party support, complete with dubious web links...yet it never seems to happen. Last I checked, the Wii had maybe 5 more titles out than the PS3...and that's completely ignoring that a large chunk of the Wii's library are PS2 ports/shovelware.

Oh, I apologize for not posting something as blatantly obvious as a link to a website with release dates for games on it: http://wii.ign.com/index/release.html
http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html
http://xbox360.ign.com/index/release.html

Now also, point out my post where you are quoting "overwhelming" from, and show those dubious links I posted.

The Seeker wrote:
Oh, I apologize for not posting something as blatantly obvious as a link to a website with release dates for games on it: http://wii.ign.com/index/release.html
http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html
http://xbox360.ign.com/index/release.html

Now also, point out my post where you are quoting "overwhelming" from, and show those dubious links I posted.

I'll be nice and avoid laughing too much about the fact that you are, as usual, citing ONLY the data that supports your verbal Nintendo handjob (in this case, the slim Oct/Nov window in IGNs notoriously inaccurate date list)...better to use that than ANY of the previous months....or TOTAL announced games...because either of those would show the Wii DEAD last - and that just wouldn't fly in Seeker Universe.

To answer your question though:

I am too lazy to dig it up, but I know for a fact you pulled this same song and dance last year - only using some different list that happened to work for your bullshit at the time (Future Shop or Best Buy?). You went on about how the Wii had "by far" more releases for Nov/Dec/whatever, followed by the 360, then the PS3 "way behind". The reality is those months came and went, and Nintendo had the least titles/support, PS3 in second, while the 360 led the way.


*yawn*

The Seeker wrote:http://wii.ign.com/index/release.html

Have you actually <i>read</i> this? What the fuck is on there that you actually want to play? There's an overwhelming amount of third-party garbage coming out for the Wii, no doubt, and if that gets your rocks off, good for you. But there are more quality third-party titles coming out for the PS3 and 360 individually over the next couple of months than there are coming out for the Wii in the next year.

The Seeker wrote:

Black Lotus wrote:

The Seeker wrote:The Xbox 360 seems to barely sell anything outside of English white male demograph which it targets.

Sorry, I had to bring this up again. Are you saying that other consoles market more to non-whites in North America than Microsoft and if so, how?

And I'd like to mention again that Microsoft IS signing developers to make JRPGs for Japan. Even if it's a futile effort, they're still trying to gain some of the Japanese market (not whites, not all males).

That quote you are examining explains the result of Microsoft's direction.

Of course Microsoft is making an attempt to attract other demographs, as there are 75 million+ other potential customers out there. The thing is Microsoft is failing, the competition is putting a much greater amount of resources into other markets.

Why? Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War, Elder Scrolls, and Tom Clancy games are marketed towards white english males. Other large gaming demographs which include female gamers (including English and non English), Japanese, non-English Europeans are not particularly interested in those types games. The games that are directed at other markets on the Xbox 360 are not particularly appealing.

But you said that THEY target white people. Are you saying that black people don't play Halo or Gears? Fail!

Anyway, it doesn't have to do with other companies putting more resources, as you say, into the other markets. Microsoft just doesn't seem to fully understand which direction the Japanese market is headed. They're banging out some pretty typical JRPGs (Trusty Bell AKA Eternal Sonata, Blue Dragon... ugh) and not enough casual/training, witch touching, Gundam names.

As for Europe outside of the UK, I think the lack of sales has more to do with price and brand loyalty. Europe generally buys up football (soccer) games and racing games, both of which there are plenty of for the 360.

You can, and most do, live under the assumption that 95% of titles for the 360 are FPS's, but it's actually more like 15-25% according to an article that was on Kotaku about a month ago.

Black people play Halo, Seeker. IS THAT ALRIGHT WITH YOU? CAN YOU HANDLE THAT!?

Microsoft doesn't care about black people.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

The Seeker wrote:http://wii.ign.com/index/release.html

Have you actually <i>read</i> this? What the fuck is on there that you actually want to play? There's an overwhelming amount of third-party garbage coming out for the Wii, no doubt, and if that gets your rocks off, good for you. But there are more quality third-party titles coming out for the PS3 and 360 individually over the next couple of months than there are coming out for the Wii in the next year.

The 360 has a better Xmas lined up than the Wii, no doubt. I mean, the Wii does have the big three of Metroid, Mario, and Smash Bros and it will have Guitar Hero 3 online and the RE: Umbrella Chronicles game looks like it might be better than you think (although not $50US good), but that just doesn't compare to Bioshock (to me, the Xmas games started with Bioshock and Metroid, which will sell throughout Xmas), Halo 3, Guitar Hero 3 w/ downloadable content, Rock Band, Mass Effect, and Assassin's Creed. And there's a ton more AA and A titles coming out right now for the 360 (Katamari's coming out for both and WiiFit, Nights, and Mario Kart are next year)

Next year the Wii will likely have a crazy lineup after all the good third party stuff FINALLY starts coming (although give props to the Big N for having maybe the best first year since the SNES in terms of titles), but that shit's coming for the 360 NOW.

I've always maintained that the Wii60 is an almost essential combination for the regular gamer nowadays. Stuff on both that's great that you don't wanna miss.

Oh, and the PS3 has Heavenly Sword now, so it's up to two solid single player games now. Not to mention their spectacular Xmas lineup....oh, wait a second....... (couldn't really resist the pop-shot :-)

Sine made reading this thread worth my time.

Hey, I try.

kali o. wrote: I'll be nice and avoid laughing too much about the fact that you are, as usual, citing ONLY the data that supports your verbal Nintendo handjob (in this case, the slim Oct/Nov window in IGNs notoriously inaccurate date list)...better to use that than ANY of the previous months....or TOTAL announced games...because either of those would show the Wii DEAD last - and that just wouldn't fly in Seeker Universe.

To answer your question though:

I am too lazy to dig it up, but I know for a fact you pulled this same song and dance last year - only using some different list that happened to work for your bullshit at the time (Future Shop or Best Buy?). You went on about how the Wii had "by far" more releases for Nov/Dec/whatever, followed by the 360, then the PS3 "way behind". The reality is those months came and went, and Nintendo had the least titles/support, PS3 in second, while the 360 led the way.


*yawn*

From Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178510.ht ... top;more;5

"the Wii received more than twice the number of retail games in its first seven months than the Xbox 360 or PS3."

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

The Seeker wrote:http://wii.ign.com/index/release.html

Have you actually <i>read</i> this? What the fuck is on there that you actually want to play? There's an overwhelming amount of third-party garbage coming out for the Wii, no doubt, and if that gets your rocks off, good for you. But there are more quality third-party titles coming out for the PS3 and 360 individually over the next couple of months than there are coming out for the Wii in the next year.

Explain exactly why I am supposed to give a crap about what you think? I don't see the relevance.

Black Lotus wrote: But you said that THEY target white people.

If they were targetting all white people, then they'd be doing a lot better. Actually what I said is that they target white English speaking males; take that demograph out and what size market does the Xbox 360 have left?

The Seeker wrote:From Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178510.ht ... top;more;5

"the Wii received more than twice the number of retail games in its first seven months than the Xbox 360 or PS3."

....187 downloadable games

Of course you'd selectively pull a quote from a random article inappropriately using the word "retail" but included VC games ....that's just how you roll.

The total game game realeases can be found anywhere - Wii is at around 80 I think, the P3 around 60 and the 360 coming up to 200.

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote:From Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178510.ht ... top;more;5

"the Wii received more than twice the number of retail games in its first seven months than the Xbox 360 or PS3."

....187 downloadable games

Of course you'd selectively pull a quote from a random article inappropriately using the word "retail" but included VC games ....that's just how you roll.

The total game game realeases can be found anywhere - Wii is at around 80 I think, the P3 around 60 and the 360 coming up to 200.

There was an article a couple of months ago at Gamespot touting the 100th VC release. So i think they'd be up to about 120 now (that's US only)

Zeus wrote:

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote:From Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178510.ht ... top;more;5

"the Wii received more than twice the number of retail games in its first seven months than the Xbox 360 or PS3."

....187 downloadable games

Of course you'd selectively pull a quote from a random article inappropriately using the word "retail" but included VC games ....that's just how you roll.

The total game game realeases can be found anywhere - Wii is at around 80 I think, the P3 around 60 and the 360 coming up to 200.

There was an article a couple of months ago at Gamespot touting the 100th VC release. So i think they'd be up to about 120 now (that's US only)

The 187 number comprises all d/l games over the 3 consoles, not the Wii alone - had you read the article.

kali o. wrote:

The Seeker wrote:From Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178510.ht ... top;more;5

"the Wii received more than twice the number of retail games in its first seven months than the Xbox 360 or PS3."

....187 downloadable games

Of course you'd selectively pull a quote from a random article inappropriately using the word "retail" but included VC games ....that's just how you roll.

The total game game realeases can be found anywhere - Wii is at around 80 I think, the P3 around 60 and the 360 coming up to 200.

Downloadable games aren't retail games. The article clearly differentiates between the two. It makes perfect sense for the Wii to have more titles, it is selling WAY faster than the other two consoles.

The Seeker wrote: Downloadable games aren't retail games. The article clearly differentiates between the two. It makes perfect sense for the Wii to have more titles, it is selling WAY faster than the other two consoles.

Right...the Wii has over 120 retail games currently out. No wonder pretty much you alone are impressed with the 3rd party line up so far - access to all these mystery games must be nice.

SineSwiper wrote:
Microsoft doesn't care about black people.

This was like three years ago at this point. The attendant jokes weren't even funny then!

Kupek wrote:Sine made reading this thread worth my time.

I concur.

kali o. wrote:

Zeus wrote:

kali o. wrote:
....187 downloadable games

Of course you'd selectively pull a quote from a random article inappropriately using the word "retail" but included VC games ....that's just how you roll.

The total game game realeases can be found anywhere - Wii is at around 80 I think, the P3 around 60 and the 360 coming up to 200.

There was an article a couple of months ago at Gamespot touting the 100th VC release. So i think they'd be up to about 120 now (that's US only)

The 187 number comprises all d/l games over the 3 consoles, not the Wii alone - had you read the article.

Maybe we're not talking about the same article?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171850.ht ... lt;title;1

And nowhere in that article did it state "all 187 downloadable game", just that they looked at 187 of them.