Relaxed Muscle
Member
I remember Sony saying how important was Nintendo to bring new people to videogames, unfortunally for them, those people didn't jump to Sony and MS platforms...
-
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 May 2014 [Up1: Wii U Hardware]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
I remember Sony saying how important was Nintendo to bring new people to videogames, unfortunally for them, those people didn't jump to Sony and MS platforms...
Aquamarine
Member
Well, Watch_Dogs sold approx. 1.3 million this month.
We have the following SKU percentages:
PS4 + Xbox One SKUs have to be higher than the unbundled Mario Kart 8 numbers (352K).
And we know that Watch_Dogs was nearly 20% of total software units and nearly 30% of total software revenue.
So, we can reasonably estimate individual SKU numbers.
When GAF makes these kind of estimates, they can be quite close to the real figures.
Sure there was. They just didn't do them.
No one thought they would ever buy a single console, and then they bought the Wii. I think it's much easier to imagine someone getting them to buy a second console once we've already proven they will buy a first. The problem is that Sony, MS, and Nintendo didn't do it.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
On 2 days, considering Wii U userbase those are good numbers, could end doing another 200,000 on June..
It definitely is. I'd also point out that this is a strong argument for reducing power on consoles. I think the Xbox and Wii U could have sold much better if they had reduced their power significantly and sold at $100-150 price points right off the bat.
Just for comparison.
In the same vein as the charts above, here's the same thing with full year data (obviously can't include 2014 yet):
And again, without the Wii:
Similarly, here's the version with the Wii replaced by GCN sales.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It was 2 days of purchases on a series that traditionally has major legs. Nintendo's in a terrible spot but this isn't really a sign.
"Wet blanket on your state of the industry fire?" Condescending much?
Regardless, AAA publisher practices are the problem. That's what is going to end up crashing the industry. Indies are popping up all over (and I love indie games) but how much money can these indie devs conceivably make in this industry right now? You say the AAA model isn't maintainable in any environment short of a casual explosion, but that is exactly what we are currently seeing.
opiate said:
100% agree. I've argued that I thought that had the Wii U not had the expensive tablet controller and hit the market at $149-$199 we'd be seeing an entirely different story right now. I really think Nintendo's next console will actually end up at that pricepoint.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm kind of curious what you think they should have done. (This is not a passive aggressive comment, I am genuinely curious.)
I missed this before, I'm not sure if it's somewhat an answer to my question. I'm really not sure what sort of hardware they could have cobbled together for an $100 price point. Aren't you essentially talking about an Ouya. :/
I don't think there was a way to avoid the fundamental problems mobile has caused to the industry. A console can't compete with a phone in ubiquity and cost of entry.
Maybe I'm not saying this correctly, but I'm trying to say that the end result of the state of the industry would be the same with or without the success of the Wii.
I don't agree with this. The games they left for, Facebook specifically, did. not. exist. prior to Facebook. That whole "pay2wait game that's not a game" browser game. Games like Mafia and later Farmville were as much an explosion as Wii Sports was. Likewise, these companies struggled just to get their traditional online stores off the ground. To then integrate a then-brand-spanking-new f2p model (that hadn't even really been firmed up) into them?
I don't agree at all. There was nothing the companies could have done to retain the casual market. The Facebook/web f2p explosion was real and no one saw it coming. All you can do in that scenario is react, which sadly usually is rarely enough.
300k in 2 days is great especially considering the install base. Not every game has to sell a million in 24 hours to be a success.
Aquamarine
Member
Mario Kart: Double Dash for GameCube debuted at 528K in November 2003.
It had like two weeks of tracking in a holiday season..
Mario Kart 8 for Wii U debuted at ~352K / ~377K including bundles in May 2014.
This was with 2 days of tracking in a usually slow month.
gundamkyoukai
Member
Like what ?
They are things they could try but would they be able to keep the core gamer also .
You see this is where i see things different from you , certain people can buy into something once and try it out don't mean there are going to do it again .
It a reason why we have the word call fad .
The very first thing I'd think of is to make significantly less powerful systems they could sell in the $100-150 range. I'd recommend going fully digital and reducing the prices of games notably. I'd recommend a strong network infrastructure.
Beyond that, I have no specific recommendations. If I knew, I'd be making millions instead of posting on NeoGAF. I just think it's reasonable to assume something could be done. We've already proven that these people will indeed buy consoles, and that they will buy them in very large numbers; I propose that the unreasonable position is to argue that they would never buy a console, when we already have empirical evidence that they will.
There is no way to know this.
Implying that the same Tomb Raider could have been built more efficiently than it was, or implying that a reduced level of fidelity would have generated the same level of sales or a greater profit from somewhat reduced sales is pure speculation.
You can't look at it forwards and backwards and get different results (all numbers hypothetical):
A) They expected 5 million copies sold so they gave a $100 million which is stupid
B) They gave a $100 million budget, so it demanded 5 million copies sold for a profit, which is stupid
That $100 million dollars is what it took to make that game. You can say (and probably do) that they should never have spent that much in the first place to chase that market, but the market trended that way without them. Either it was going to be an exceptionally cheap game or an exceptionally expensive one, their competition in the latter category (Uncharted, Batman, etc.) already went there. They couldn't come in with Perfect Dark Zero level visuals and expect to not get laughed out of the market. So unless you are implying what I theorized in my first paragraph (which is misguided), they kinda had to go for the long shot.
And guess what, it was profitable.
Bioshock is a different matter.
Totally correct. If it came from PC, it's not a game on PS4. Also, Knack, Infamous, and SS were all terrible. Take that Sony fans.
It's not a bad industry, but it is a industry where consoles are outdated. Think about it... all these indie games appear on PC or on mobile platforms. What is the point of buying a console if one doesn't like the homogenized AAA experience? If I just wanted indie games, why shouldn't I just play games on PC? The most interesting gaming platforms for me at the moment are the 3DS, Wii U, and the Vita, all of which are considered niche platforms but all at least have something different from the homogenized AAA experience. Meanwhile, I have a laptop and a tablet with cheap games I got from the Humble Bundle, which generally work on my laptop and tablet. I have a Steam Account, a GoG Account, a Desura Account, an Amazon Account, and a Google Play Account. The only reason PS4 is even on my radar at the moment is because Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts will be coming to it.
lightning2k3
Member
I disagree. We saw how microsoft did when they reduced the power and tried to target the casuals with their new console. In my opinion, the better strategy would be to target the hardcore first with a strong machine at a higher price point, then later in the cycle cut the price and introduce more family friendly games to hit a more casual market. Early adopters still drive the perception around a new console and if you released a piece of junk, no one will buy it.
I bet Mario Kart will ultimately take a big chunk of those old Wii owners back over time. Same definately said for Little big planet 3 and to a smaller extent Sunset Overdrive.
I'm suprised neither of the other two have gone all out for a really good Karting game, the format is obviously a system seller. People will always prefer to play cheesy puzzle games on a phone though, it is just a sign of the times and wont change.
I'm suprised neither of the other two have gone all out for a really good Karting game, the format is obviously a system seller. People will always prefer to play cheesy puzzle games on a phone though, it is just a sign of the times and wont change.
You are saying that Facebook is an extremely strong, savvy competitor. I agree. This does not make them impossible to beat, just harder than Sony or Nintendo is.
You say they could have "reacted." My point is that they either did not react (Sony made a very conservative console) or reacted poorly (Nintendo and Microsoft). It is entirely possible to create a system which reacts to new competition intelligently and appropriately and heads that competition off at the pass. None of the console makers did that.
did not mean to condescend, sorry. No AAA practices will not crash the industry. It will just continue to bankrupt those publishers. As for how much the indie devs can make.. it really isn't ANY different than the industry used to be say 20 years ago. tons of ok selling titles. a bunch of poor selling titles, and occasional fires that see huge sales. You are even seeing new "AAA indie pubs" popping up like Nicalis and Mojang, and even some indie devs carving out a name for themselves along the line of a publisher following.
I really think the big takeaway here is that the market is changing. Shrinking? Contracting? Resuming it's pre-casual state? Focusing on core gaming? Whatever you want to call it, sure. I just don't believe stating that the health of the industry is in any sort of a precarious state is true unless you are strictly comparing non-casual generations directly to casual generations (i.e. PS2 and Wii era)
I'm amused by the notion that the console industry simply cannot be changed, that it must continue down the path its on, and that absolutely nothing can be done to recapture lost audiences -- audiences which are still growing and are highly profitable in aggregate, I might add.
Of course something could have been done. The console makers just didn't do it. Sony didn't even really try; Microsoft and Nintendo tried and failed. Saying that they failed is not proof that it's impossible, although it's strong evidence that Microsoft and Nintendo aren't as smart as Google and Apple are. Microsoft and Nintendo tried to compete with Apple and Google, and they lost badly. That doesn't make the task impossible, although it may mean Nintendo and Microsoft (specifically) aren't up for the job.
Of course something could have been done. The console makers just didn't do it. Sony didn't even really try; Microsoft and Nintendo tried and failed. Saying that they failed is not proof that it's impossible, although it's strong evidence that Microsoft and Nintendo aren't as smart as Google and Apple are. Microsoft and Nintendo tried to compete with Apple and Google, and they lost badly. That doesn't make the task impossible, although it may mean Nintendo and Microsoft (specifically) aren't up for the job.
gundamkyoukai
Member
This make no sense then because they would have gotten eating alive by the table market and other core gamers would just move to PC where this already happening .
The problem i have with your plan is your trying to destroy core gamer for a certain group of people that might never buy a consoles .
shinra-bansho
Member
Yeah, I didn't see your comment before.
With the exception of strong network infrastructure, it sounds to me like you're describing something like the Ouya. Or including networked services, alternatively the Vita TV. I doubt either is setting the consumer market alight.
The Wii proved that people who don't normally buy/play consoles would buy consoles with an accessible novelty. And they'd buy them in large numbers for a space of time. I don't think it really showed they'd buy microconsoles. People also bought a lot of plastic peripherals for a while. They bought a lot of fitness games. They're currently buying quite a lot of NFC toys. I guess one could argue that Sony and Microsoft should have invested more into trying to find an accessible novelty.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Since we know the target audience for PS4 and Xbone are male between 15-35, what about boys between 11-15? It's an expending market and when kids see their friends getting consoles they want to get consoles as well to play with them. While the target audience are male between 15-35, that does not mean that Sony and MS can't attract younger casual buyers who want to play with their friends. The biggest obstacle is the price for casuals.
I vote not to exclude the Wii.
It doesn't matter what kind of audience it captured, it never mattered before who it was. They were buying video games, we counted them. That's all there was and is to it. That they went away, that they were fickle, casuals, that the console industry failed to keep them interested or that there was nothing they could have done to prevent their exodus is another discussion, one that tries to explain the decline, not one that makes it disappear.
We just have to accept last gen was a peak in home console sales and the current machines do not show any signs of preventing a decrease. That said, there's a long way between decline and demise. Let's see where this fall will stop.
Can you disclose what ultimately was the share of 1st and 3rd party sales for the Wii? (like 60% and 40%)
It doesn't matter what kind of audience it captured, it never mattered before who it was. They were buying video games, we counted them. That's all there was and is to it. That they went away, that they were fickle, casuals, that the console industry failed to keep them interested or that there was nothing they could have done to prevent their exodus is another discussion, one that tries to explain the decline, not one that makes it disappear.
We just have to accept last gen was a peak in home console sales and the current machines do not show any signs of preventing a decrease. That said, there's a long way between decline and demise. Let's see where this fall will stop.
Can you disclose what ultimately was the share of 1st and 3rd party sales for the Wii? (like 60% and 40%)
Why are people pointing out data basically showing no substantial growth after 10+ years as a good thing and dismissing the one case where there was significant growth as something that couldn't possibly be repeated?
I mean I understand the Wii's success wasn't permanent, but what exactly is preventing another hardware manufacture breaking away from Sony and MS's business model and trying to tap into the casual market again? Does it really just boil down to, "We don't know what the fuck those crazy casual gamers are thinking," and the industry is just going to watch mobile gaming increasingly swallow up the market?
Edit: Late post. I agree with Opiate. Why is it that the industry can't change?
I mean I understand the Wii's success wasn't permanent, but what exactly is preventing another hardware manufacture breaking away from Sony and MS's business model and trying to tap into the casual market again? Does it really just boil down to, "We don't know what the fuck those crazy casual gamers are thinking," and the industry is just going to watch mobile gaming increasingly swallow up the market?
Edit: Late post. I agree with Opiate. Why is it that the industry can't change?
I think Sony has an excellent strategy, actually. A "conservative" console in the short term, and a games as a service platform that will eventually be hardware agnostic in the long term.
lightning2k3
Member
Not everyone wants to set up a PC. Although you do make some good points. Which is why we are seenig sony transition from a platform to a service via ps now.
That was a failure on Nintendo's part. Naming the followup to the "Wii" the "Wii 2" would have at least showed a promising start. Neither Sony nor Microsoft had the grannie audience to begin with, so it wouldnt have been their responsibility to bring them "back".
Gotdatmoney
Member
That's around a 15% attach rate (approximately) of buyers in 3 days. I don't know why that is bad if you are talking about WiiU "owners" and not absolute terms. I think that's pretty solid software sales. Still though, WiiU owners in general do not seem to buy a lot of software and in turn there is not much software released for it.
the problem is that reacting already puts you at an extremely disadvantageous position. you are by default a copy/clone/lesser entity. That user is already at Facebook playing their game. As the reactor, you now have to convince that user that your "version" of that game is worth them leaving the game they are already invested into. That's a tough sell.
Of course the alternative is to not copy but instead innovate again... but that's the billion dollar dilemma now isn't it.. You mentioned Nintendo and MS reacting poorly.. but who at that very moment could pinpoint that they were reacting poorly? hindsight is 20/20 and all of that.
Looking at the big casual exodus, I really don't know what they could have done that would have realistically curbed it. well, short of inventing the faceook f2p model before or very nearly after facebook and zynga actually did.
Wouldn't this have been suicide?
Their competition in the modern sense would have been the iPhone; a system so heavily subsidized that it allows for exceptional profits on hardware that is technically beyond what people pay for it.
Sony and MS would have games that look substantially worse (due to the lower price point hardware), wouldn't likely have the extreme profitability without the subsidies, wouldn't have a built in upgrade path with the social cache phones do, likely wouldn't have the stable of developers with experience creating low cost gaming (what would Naughty Dog do? Guerrilla? 343?), and they would have lost all the mindshare that their core audience expects of them.
If you are talking about additional platforms...maybe. But Sony is kind of trying that with the Vita TV thing and MS tries/tried with Windows Phone. I don't think either will be flying mainstream successes.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
That strategy might hold out for the short term but I don't see it as being a viable option for a 4-6 year console span. Or are you implying that they would shorten each cycle?
Aquamarine
Member
16% attach rate for two days in USA.
And NOA reported an 18% attach rate. This is most likely including June 1st and/or digital figures.
It is, no argument there. "Tough sell" is different from "impossible."
I completely agree. Again, my goal is not to suggest that it's obvious and how could they have not seen it, it's to suggest that this isn't impossible. It is possible, it just wasn't done.
Those certainly would have done it, yes.
gundamkyoukai
Member
TR reboot also took near 5 years to make so yes they could have done better .
He said more, he wasn't talking about subjective quality, which you seem to have switched to for some reason.
Sony have had more first party titles published this year and through to the end of 2014 - even if you exclude 'retreads of PC indie titles'.
lightning2k3
Member
In my opinion, the best course of action for these companies to do is to give away a xbox360 or a ps3 for FREE*(with a 2 year subsription to gold/ps+ at 9.99 a month). This is something that Microsoft tried before, but I think the free price tag would really be much more popular, and now that you get 2 games for free a month, the value aspect of the subscription isn't even that terrible.
Version 3.0
Member
That's certainly true, but only to a degree. We can't pretend that smartphones and tablets have only taken off as game devices due to negligence by console makers.
Firstly, they DID try. Nintendo (stupidly) thought the Wii U Gamepad would resonate with tablet owners, clearly that was not the case. Sony thought Move would appeal, and Microsoft had a hit with the Kinect, and doubled down on it for this gen. They all failed to carry any significant part of that market into this gen, but they did, in fact, try.
On the flip side of that coin, there's no way that smartphones and tablets could have zero impact on console gaming, particularly phones. Phones are ubiquitous and necessary, and smartphones offer far too much functionality for a console to be a substitute. So there was no way to prevent their trojan horse entry into the games market.
Getting someone to buy a second console should be easier, in a vacuum. But let's not forget that the Wii was largely pre-smartphones/tablets, and we are now in a world where those are commonplace, to put it mildly.
A smartphone/tablet owner is less likely to buy anything which they feel they no longer need due to their phone. Things on that list may include regular phones, watches, calculators, GPS devices, PCs and laptops, voice recorders, flashlights, cameras, and game consoles.
It's worth noting that all those things still sell, and not just to people without smartphones. But the Wii demographic is probably content to consider their phone a suitable substitute for a game console.
i vaguely recall having this conversation before. anyway, i don't think the comparison of a decade-old medium to a popular emerging one is really strong, especially considering the popularity of dvds early on. second, i think the idea that the playstation brand is so strong because of the games coming to it is flawed. all of those big franchises and more were also coming to the ps3, exclusively even, but instead they all went multiplatform save for two, and the ps3 struggled in its early months because instead of having a hook, it had an anchor.
the ps2 was the first actual attempt at making a video game console a video game hub. it was on the bleeding edge of technology to have this brand new medium playable for so cheap. it was mentioned in most reviews of the hardware as being a positive element, and as you noted, it changed the nature in which game platforms were developed from now on, except now it's commonplace for a video game platform to play movies and music, not a novelty.
Fez took 5 years.
Unless you can point to an article detailing team size over the course of development, time to market is irrelevant.
Also, prototyping games and finding out certain paths are not worth pursuing (and incurring extreme asset generation costs only to throw them out) is better than the Bioshock Infinite path. Whether you thought the new TR was a blight on modern gaming is irrelevant, it eventually eked out profitability (with a chance for expansion on the sequel) so the formula worked.
But without seeing the numbers, we have no idea if this would be a money losing venture or not. Even with the consoles being as pricey as they are and both having solid subscription numbers, Sony and MS have a hard time staying in the black.
I think vita TV is their attempt. $99, streams netflix, oh and it also plays some games!
PSnow could ease the barrier to $60 games quite nicely, gamefly is operating on the old netflix mail model, streaming casual games is the future.
Be interesting to see it go against the next apple TV which is sure to be more powerful and have app (game) support.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Just further emphasizes the point haha. Thanks for the more solid figures though. Much appreciated.
your essentially talking about a subscription service with mandatory hardware.. aka cable/satellite. right to the point, the hardware cost isn't low enough to support the current pricing of the subscription model. by comparison by the time DirecTV stopped charging you an "upgrade" fee on a single line hardware costs were approaching $100 (both original non-DVR and years later DVR) on a service that see I believe an average per consumer revenue over over $70/month. Yes there are per customer channel costs to the networks, but likewise PS Plus publishers get paid as well.
Another problem to consider is that by "giving away" the hardware by thus requiring a Plus/Live subscription with games included, you are now likely killing new game sales with the type of audience you are attracting with these systems. So you are giving away $xxx worth of hardware and on return only seeing about $4/month of revenue.
For your proposed free hardware model the monthly revenue would have to go up considerably. Heck Tivo has significantly lower operating costs than SCEI or XBox division, and even they charge $13 per month on top of a $99 subsidized price.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
Keep in mind this is the regular Mario & Luigi bundle, not the Mario Kart 8 bundle, which Amazon doesn't sell. The MK8 bundle is sold out in best buys & targets in my area yet the other bundles seem to be readily available.
lightning2k3
Member
Obviously this was just an idea off the top of my head. But considering you can get a regular 12gb ps3 for 249, lets say that you charge 50 bucks instead of free + 24 months of 9.99, for a total of about 290 bucks. You are gonna lose some in terms of time value of money and lose some 60 bucks in absolute terms(250+50+50>290), but you are locking someone into your ps ecosystem for at least 2 years, and you are able to sell them games movies and all sorts of other content. When the 2 year contract ends, maybe half won't even cancel and will continue to pay 10 bucks a month for ps plus. I think that might be a good value proposition for Sony.
For people that don't play PC games, which is a lot of people, those count.