-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results For November 2010 [Update 6: PSP, PS2, Move Games]
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
The industry needs to take note of this. PS3 is sold and marketed as a device that does it all, and so there is a definitely chunk of gaming time being cut into by movies. Movies don't make anyone in the game industry any money.
The more that Sony and Microsoft push toward convergence, the faster gaming will become marginalized, homogenized and settle into the realm of fewer and fewer publishers. That's why Nintendo has always pushed gaming and gaming alone on their systems with all these other things as completely ancilliary and mostly unmarketed features.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Dave Long said:
Convergence will expand the industry, not shrink it. The iPhone is a good example of this. iPhone found a new market of gamers. Long-term the smart companies will embrace convergence or die.
They would, but the easier you make it to have that content competing right there on the same screen (and worse, able to be accessed via download instead of inserting a disc you had to go get from the store), the more games will be losing out over the long run.Zoe said:
All entertainment options are in competition with one another. If you make games exclusively (Nintendo/third-parties) then you need games to be of high quality and have them be the primary form of entertainment. The more the console makers let other stuff creep onto what are supposed to be game consoles, the more it hurts games-only companies.
Disagreed. Gaming isn't threatened by gaming boxes doing other things. Smart phones and PC gaming is just fine and the multi functionality Xbox has a higher software attach rate than the gaming only Wii.Dave Long said:
Different forms of entertainment compete with each other any way and having them be available from the same device doesn't make any difference to that fact. It could hamper the game playing ability of the device sure as the hardware needs to accommodate different purposes (no buttons on iPhone, Sony Blu ray drive slower than a standard DVD drive) but games can hold their own in competing for user time.
BriareosGAF
Member
Azih said:
It's a complex issue for sure, but spending time on non-gaming functionality does have its downsides; there's opportunity cost not just with the end-user's purchases, but also in the R&D budget and focus of the first-party console makers.
jcm said:
Well, first they wouldn't make it in the first place, because it's retarded and desperate.
But if they did make it, they would make it an ad that would be seen by somebody that isn't already one of the PS3 faithful. Maybe Better Homes & Gardens, Popular Mechanic, or O Magazine.
charlequin
Banned
Dave Long said:
Nintendo pushes gaming and gaming alone because they're only a gaming company and only make money on gaming, while Sony and Microsoft are huge companies with diverse holdings in other fields that they can profit off of using their gaming business as a lever. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the industry.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Vinci said:
Not unless it provides a significant tangible benefit to most consumers. Specialization for the sake of specialization gets you nothing.
For the record I agree with Pachter's statements regarding iPhone vs PSP2 vs 3DS. So yeah.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
PopcornMegaphone said:Not unless it provides a significant tangible benefit to most consumers. Specialization for the sake of specialization gets you nothing.
For the record I agree with Pachter's statements regarding iPhone vs PSP2 vs 3DS. So yeah.
The PSP2 and DS do literally offer a tangible benefit to consumers - buttons and analog joysticks. There are games that will never make sense on that platform because of the control limitations. If both the PSP2 and 3DS have touch screens, on the other hand, every game possible on Iphone will be possible on some level on those two platforms.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Long-term we'll see if most consumers care enough about these benefits to carry around an additional device. I think dedicated portable gaming devices will become increasingly niche. We shall see.
Lonely1 said:
Ebook-multimedia-web- mobile applications for students at uni<<< That's how it's marketed as.
A netbook is just a less functional laptop, cheaper even.
It get compared to a Kindle more than netbook over here in the uk, although it's eating up netbook sales quicker than anybody has predicted. Is it different where you are?
Zoe said:
And iPhone is a super set of a regular cellphone. That can do some "computer " and gaming handheld/MP3/Movie players tasks/PIP devices. So yes, you can argue an iPhone a convergence device. (Although, in stuff "it can do" is behind Palm/Windows CE smarthphone devices).
But the iPad is a subset of a Netbook/Tablet PC. it can do fewer things, but can do websurfing, playing hanheld games, reading ebooks, etc... better.
Ashes1396 said:
Exaclty. A Netbook can do all those things. But arguably worse.
A Netbook can do anything a laptop can. Is just a less powerfull/cheap laptop.Ashes1396 said:
The fact that is eating netbook market share is an argument for specialization. A netbook can do Ebook-multimedia-web- mobile applications too, but arguably the iPad can do those things better.Ashes1396 said:
Edit: Hell, the iPad is a subset of the iPhone. It can do less stuff, but can do Ebook-multimedia-web better thanks to its bigger screen. Another argument for specialization.
Every consumer electonic is specialized, however at some point adding features that don't belong to its area of specialization comes at little to no cost and manufacturers implement them to make the device more attractive. Surely ideally you'd want a specialized device to everything to have the best possible experience/results, but there's also so many things you can carry/afford. Even 3DS has a couple of features that aren't specifically gaming related - making 3D photos or watching 3D movies and maybe some more I'm not aware of.
Sho_Nuff82 said:
But what will these games be priced at? A big appeal of itouch gaming is how cheap you can get games. I'm surprised big publishers are offering fully featured games for like 5 to 10 bucks on itouch but they are. Most popular games are 99 cents. EA has a huge 99 cent sale going on right now on itouch. These games run for 20 to 30 on PSP and DS. Is Sony or Nintendo willing to take the margins down so low on each platform?
see5harp said:
Ignore this mad man!
We are.
Ebook reading on the ipad and netbook are different. Sure you can read an e-book on pc as well, but in a magazine feature on the best ebook readers for christmas, you won't get a pc, nor a netbook for that matter.
A netbook is like a portable pc, which by it's essense is multifunctional. But a netbook is *less functional*, so it can't ever be a convergence device.
The ipad is a tablet, and yet it is *more functional*. Heck it was revealed as the stopgap between a ipod, iphone and Macbook. There's the convergence right off the bat.
I cannot and will not accept that the ipad is not a convergence device! :lol
I certainly feel you both...the iPad is a hard device to categorize because it doesn't do much much different than the iPhone other than form factor (with the same OS to boot). At the same time, it's a device that gets a ton of use. Honestly, if I could accept bricks and wooden boards in the Farmville app, I'd use my Macbook even less than I do now.
see5harp said:
It's form factor makes it a viable ebook reader. That by itself is a big enough reason for it to be called a genuine ebook reader.
I mean ipads are not unique to the convergence device movement or whatever it's officialy known as. You can read ebooks on a lot of devices, ds lite even.
Ipad would be for me one of the many converger devices, like the 3d bluray players with access to the internet; x360/ps3/wii with their multimedia functions, heck even the way this stuff is sold is grouped together these days, at least where I am. You can get the same company providing broadband, home networking, cable satellite, telephone and mobile/cell.
Ashes1396 said:
O it's a convergence device for sure. My mom would never dream of using her iTouch to browse the web or watch movies, but just the increase in size makes it a device she can and will use. iTunes/iOS is the very essence of convergence. We're talking a marketplace for apps/podcasts/music/radio/moves/tv/books/magazines/etc in addition to actual cross platform development with iOS. Sony, Nintendo and MS are pretty damn far from that future, although MS seems to be on the right track.
The Psp launched almost 5 years after the ipod I think, and it was sold as a multimedia device. I wonder what sony plans to do with psp2 now?
I'm not talking from a games point of view, it'll have games. I'm wondering whether it'll have 3g.
will it have 3d?
It'll have comics, will it have books? google's bookstore?
I think it's a good idea to leverage google's software credentials to compete against Microsoft.
And on that note, Microsoft looked at wii's casual sales and wanted a piece of that pie. They must be looking at the king on top, the ds lite. They simply must.
I'm not talking from a games point of view, it'll have games. I'm wondering whether it'll have 3g.
will it have 3d?
It'll have comics, will it have books? google's bookstore?
I think it's a good idea to leverage google's software credentials to compete against Microsoft.
And on that note, Microsoft looked at wii's casual sales and wanted a piece of that pie. They must be looking at the king on top, the ds lite. They simply must.
I think you should re-read this because your last line contradicts what you're saying.charlequin said:
Nintendo's industry is videogames. They are protecting the industry by pushing gaming and gaming alone because it's the only industry they're in. Whether that's self-serving or not, the reality is they're focused mainly on videogames because they know that's where their bread is buttered and making better videogames and promoting gaming serves the industry they are in.
If games were to become a fading fad or something caused people to majorly lose interest, Nintendo likely would try to find a way to change that. Microsoft and Sony, not so much... because if they can still sell you the box and the software to run it and get paid to feed you movies or music or whatever that thing that supplants videogames becomes, then they're happy.
Has everyone already forgotten Microsoft closing Ensemble Studios? Jettisoning Bungie? Having Rare become avatar creation experts? These things alone should tell you all you need to know about the health of gaming if gaming becomes an also-ran entertainment form that starts losing major steam. Heck, I'd argue that Microsoft's whole E3 last year with its focus on ESPN and Netflix and Facebook and the like was one more slap in the face of gaming in general.
Dave Long said:
If that was the case, they would have made their platform more accessable to third party studios as it would be in their best interest to keep the entire industry healthy, instead it is their stable of IP's that flourish on their systems as usual.
Nothing wrong with that but there is no Nintendo higher calling to champion and protect the industry
I think he meant that Nintendo's primary interest is self serving, which has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the industry.
And I wouldn't worry about Microsoft's commitment issues with gaming. Not when they've just invested half a billion this fall just marketing their new device.
And I wouldn't worry about Microsoft's commitment issues with gaming. Not when they've just invested half a billion this fall just marketing their new device.
Nintendo likes when third parties are happy, but they are not and cannot be in the business of selling their games for them. They have enough of their own titles to worry about and the way they execute on most of them should tell you all you need to know about how important gaming is to Nintendo.Dunlop said:
This is where people have been misled by Sony and Microsoft. Those two absolutely need third party software for any kind of games machine. Without it, they fail. Miserably. With it, they can "win". So that's why they will spend ludicrous sums to both produce and/or market certain third party titles. This makes it seem like they are interested in gaming as a whole but they're not. It's just opportunistic marketing of titles that they know can help sell their trojan box. They benefit because of all the other content in addition to games and if somewhere down the road the games become a product people are less interested in, it's not their fault and they just switch it to a movie box or whatever convergence thing you can think up next.
Nintendo's money is better spent on their own games because simply, their games are of a higher quality overall. If you have in house development that's the best in the world, why would you pay other companies for extra games to compete against your own? It makes no fiscal sense, especially when you're profiting on in house development taking center stage. You help where you can, but usually where you aren't competing. Hence... Goldeneye.
EDIT: And I know where this is going and what people will automatically say about me or whatever... but I play games on all the machines. I enjoy games on all of them, and I use some of the convergence features too. I just get concerned when I see the type of thing I'm commenting on above, because I think it will get interpreted a certain way. With Kutaragi gone at Sony, what's to say they don't just migrate away from gaming? Or come up with a box that basically plays flash games and nothing else? It's not short term thinking, but longer term. If games are minimized in your sales, you start to minimize games in your investment. If it's easier to just take people's money as a conduit to streamed video, wouldn't you do that instead? And why would you worry what Activision or EA or any of the other third parties think? They're not your problem. Showing your investors that your bottom line is strong is your real problem. Games be damned.
With Nintendo, the two are always so intertwined that games never get damned.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Vinci said:
is this not the classic dilemma of any form of altruism? billionaire gives away half his money--selfless, or a selfish attempt at solidifying his legacy and erasing his past misdeeds?
OscarMalory
Banned
Dave Long said:
MS and Sony spending ludicrous sums to produce and market third-party titles? No.
Sony spent some money on gathering a stable of top developer talent, I doubt it was "ludicrous". Also Sony spends money on brand awareness, e.g. the Playstation logos all around FIFA/UEFA events in Europe.
MS don't seem to spend much on anything development-related. A "Jump in"-ending commercial here and there is not "ludicrous sums".
That's funny that you worry about the industry so much when there are more games coming out on a weekly basis than most people can play (especially so if they own every platform). I'm sure next year you'll complain about the lack of hardcore games on here and won't touch more than a couple of the great games on XBLA, iOS, PSN, or Wiiware.
charlequin
Banned
Dave Long said:
Nope. Nintendo doesn't give a shit about the industry. In fact, Nintendo would very much rather there weren't an industry, and they could continue selling their products without interference from competitors or third-party game publishers.
If pushing a gaming-only machine helped them, and also happened to help some other gaming companies, they'd do that. But if pushing a game-only machine helped them and screwed over every other company in the industry, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Ashes1396 said:
Precisely.
Vinci said:
It's really not, though. There are many conceivable scenarios in which the revenue of the industry as a whole is down but the revenue of Nintendo in particular is up. In fact, that's pretty much precisely the scenario in Japan over the last six years, and we've seen quite clearly that Nintendo does not consider that to be a problem.
I wouldn't give Microsoft or Sony credit for "altruistic" moves that helped the entire industry either, BTW, but both of those companies have potential incentives for helping the industry as a whole stay afloat (to wit, they both profit extensively off of industry partnerships) whereas Nintendo really don't, very clearly understand that they don't, and behave consistently in a fashion that demonstrates this understanding.
Vinci said:
Oh I haven't made up my mind yet. It's what I think he meant. I'm sure he'll come along and state his own opinions.*
As to my own questions, Nintendo hasn't been the greatest courter of third party software, which doesn't say much about Nintendo's wider interests, historically I mean.
But they seem to be doing this going forward especially with the 3ds.
Where online and digital distribution is concerned, they've dabbed their feet in it, but Microsoft leads the way in the console space. Actually, Steam probably leads the way, if I'm talking about gaming overall.
It's difficult in other areas. That is to say whether they've held back the industry, as regards hd adoption, or pushed it forwards as regards motion gaming or more appropriately the 3ds.
edit: *And there he is... :lol
charlequin said:
Well, from their perspective, what they did was beneficial for the industry as it made its userbase grow - which, again, serves Nintendo's purpose. I'm not suggesting that Nintendo cares about the industry from an internal perspective - that is, they don't care about other companies in it - but they are very interested in keeping the industry from becoming niche in its overall audience since that would keep their potential customerbase down.
I would argue it's conceivable that the latter is more important for the industry than the former.