backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 77 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on Dec 3 at 10:16 AM
Game consoles need to be under $200 for mass market within two years, says Activision CEO

When making buying decisions, there is apparently one factor that outweighs all others: price. While there are exceptions to the rule, the concept of high price sensitivity currently applies to video game systems.

The Wii’s appeal may be much broader than the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, but surely Nintendo’s lower price tag attracts many for those looking to get into the current generation of games. Nevermind the Wii’s inability to play DVD movies or output high-definition visuals – it’s the most affordable current console on the market.

For Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, however, even Wii’s price point of $249 is still a bit on the high side. Kotick said at a Reuters event that he believes the key price point for mass adoption was $199 – a price currently untouched by the current generation.

Kotick believes that the PlayStation 3 is a good machine, but that the Wii is setting a new standard for the industry due to its price. The Wii is priced $150 cheaper than the entry level 40GB PS3.

"The Wii at its price point is now setting a standard and an expectation, and people say, well, the Wii is less complex technically. I don't think that really matters as much to the consumer," said Kotick.

For a games publisher such as Activision, cheaper consoles mean a potentially larger user base buying games. Not only would Kotick like for cheaper consoles such as the Wii to become the norm, he believes that all three consoles “need” to hit sub-$200 levels within the next two years.

"In the next 24 months they all will need to be at that $199 price point, and you can imagine Nintendo will be down to the $129 price point over the next few years," Kotick added.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Nintendo already knows this
By mikefarinha on 11/30/2007 12:12:01 AM , Rating: 5
Historically Nintendo always launched their consoles at either $199 or $250.
I think the Wii could have been launched at $199 but having the closest competition at around $350ish they were able to fill the 'inexpensive console' void and still make money... Lots and lots of money!




RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Polynikes on 11/30/2007 12:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's still worth every penny of that $250.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By iFX on 11/30/2007 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not to me. I haven't had a console since Super Nintendo, mostly because they are too much $$$.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By amanojaku on 11/30/2007 2:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you're missing. If anything, the Wii is worth it at $250. I mean, it doesn't look as good as the PS3 or the Xbox 360, but it's FUN. Repeat: FUN!!! And you get used to the graphics, which are WAY better than the Super Nintendo's.

On the other hand, you could read a book. 10 hardcovers cost as much as a Wii...


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By iFX on 12/1/2007 6:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sure I do... $250.00


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By randomwalk16 on 11/30/2007 12:21:08 AM , Rating: 3
Which is interesting b/c considering they have been releasing at $199 for about 20 years (since the NES), the relative price has actually gone down, taking inflation into account.

According to
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus
and using $199 and 1985 as the inital year (about the time of the NES), you get a comparable price today of around $375, which is, unsurprisingly, close to the cost of the other systems today.

Using the same site for the N64, says it would be around $250 dollars today, the same as the wii...


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By kamel5547 on 11/30/2007 12:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but technology tends to defy inflationary pressures. In reality while prices of most items increase, those of technological items tend to spiral downward as R&D costs are recouped and manufacturing improves. Just look at PC prices, LCD prices and the like.

I guess what I am saying is that perhaps regular inflation indexing shouldn't be applied to hardware.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By randomwalk16 on 11/30/2007 1:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think that that mainly applies only to technology of same level. As the hardware improves, the price tends to maintain a certain level. The bottom level tech certainly gets cheaper, but you still pay a premium for the current generation (i.e. I payed the same for my new-ish digital camera this year as I did for the a new-ish one 3 years ago).

In this case, the hardware is greatly improved from the SNES/N64/Playstation/InsertOLDSystemHere, so the price across-generations doesn't drop as you would see for same-size LCDs/same-spec PC's


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Frank M on 11/30/2007 9:15:01 AM , Rating: 4
I disagree. A mid-range computer is significantly cheaper today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Samus on 11/30/2007 2:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
According to that site, accounting for inflation, I should be paying $3000 for an entry level dual-core notebook.

I don't think so. If anything, computers and game consoles should be getting cheaper, and they are, because production costs less now (increased volume) and there are more people buying (demand.)

And they are getting cheaper. If you had told me 10 years ago I could get a sweet ass laptop or a multi-processor desktop powerhouse for $500 bucks, I'd probably laugh.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By killerroach on 11/30/2007 9:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
The costs of gaming are getting cheaper, though. I remember NES games running $60-$70, and that was a bargain compared to what they sold for in Japan (between $70-$125, depending on the exchange rate at the time). So, adjusted for inflation, we should be seeing $400 consoles and $130 games, where today we have $250-$500 consoles and $40-$60 games. Assuming a modest ten-game library, that means we're doing about a third better than the NES of 1985 under the worst case scenario (an 80GB PS3 and a bunch of new games), and over 60% cheaper assuming more favorable terms (a Wii with mostly new titles with a couple of slightly older ones).

As I heard somebody else mention, it sounds like Activision wants Microsoft and Sony to lower the prices on their nearly billion-transistor monoliths so they can push more of their $60 pieces of plastic. It's a gross oversimplification, I know... after all, any economist would tell you the marginal of a new AAA title may be about a dollar for each after the first, but $20-25 million for that first plastic disc :)


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Calin on 11/30/2007 6:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
The prices for flash memory sticks are the best example of this.
Some three or four years ago, I've bought an 128MB USB memory stick. Then, last year, I've bought a 1GB unit for the same price. Now, I could buy a 4GB for just a little more


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By paydirt on 11/30/2007 9:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The CEO of Activision is stuck in the past and shouldn't be making such ignorant comments.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 9:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
No, he's right... price is more important than ever particularly with the current squeeze on the middle class... was just reading a news article the other day about how the middle class today is technically "doing so much better" than our parents generation (salary wise), but yet at the end of the day once we've paid our bills we have sigificantly less spending money then they did.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Rav3n on 11/30/2007 2:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of ignorant comments...


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By daftrok on 11/30/2007 1:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. However if the Wii was $199 at launch the 360 would drop in price even further and the PS3 would more than likely tried to launch at $399 rather than $499


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By ZavyZavy on 11/30/2007 6:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly,

In fact Nintendo highlighted this many a time at developer conferences. Did they listen? No. But money talks and now they are listening. (Activision is acting as if they didn’t ignore the Wii at launch - like most third parties).

It’s clear that consoles need to be an ‘impulse-buy’ point so that Third Parties can increase the likelihood of making a profit on a game (because of the 3 consoles’ market proliferation).

On another note, with Nintendo’s ever growing war chest of cash, they are in a great position to engage in a price war with cash flush Microsoft and Sony – if Nintendo feels the time is right or feels threatened.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 8:55:07 AM , Rating: 1
OK, speculation of this sort kills me. The PS3 and the 360 are in a completely different marketing segment. But the flaw here and just about everywhere is that many compare the Wii as if its on equal ground as one of three "nexgen" gaming consoles. It's simply not. Although its a very popular and fun console for families, weekend getways and some nursing homes compared too the others it's more a low ball stocking stuffer impulse buy that's priced accordingly.

The Wii doesn't come close to the features of the 360 and the PS3's media hub capabilities. And this idea that Nintendo could start a price war? What are you smoking? Purchasers that are considering a 360 or a PS3 aren't thinking, "oh screw it, I'll save $150.00 - $200.00 and get a Wii instead. Those people, like many of us for example, are doing their homework and buying either for their titles, features or a lot of both.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 9:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh god... so now not only are nintendo and everyone else in different market segments, but now Sony and Microsoft are as well... Seriously, they're all game consoles, they're all in exactly the same market segment!!! Most families are in a position to only choose one out of the three, and they'll choose the one that is most important to them price being a siginifcant factor.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 9:36:21 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe for little Johnny on Christmas Eve? Otherwise you couldn't be more wrong. This probably isn't too tough, check the pricing and features of each. Then make a list of the specs and capabilities of each. And while you're at it post your findings here.

I'm looking forward to reading it.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 9:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
Considering most people aren't concerned or even aware of any sort of HTPC type function (which by the way, the X-BOX w/accessories is currently more media center capable than the PS3 until Sony has a good media market and PC integration), yeah they're all targeted at people that want a game console... The only people who care about the differences are fanboi's and very knowlegeable gaming customers who might want a particular system because it has a game that they really like (if you like halo you buy x-box etc).

Other than that extreamly small segment of the market which nintendo has already proved really doesn't make much of an impact in terms of steering the market towards a winner, they're all on equal footing as game consoles. Other than price, game experience, and for a select few that know and care HD. I hate to be the one to break this reality to you, but the people posting here on DT don't repersent the market at large, and our opinions will do little over all to sway what people by. If it did Nintendo would be laughably a distant 3rd considering how ignored they were with the Wii launch.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 10:39:17 AM , Rating: 1
Oh I agree with you there about how DT is not the compass for purchases around the world.

But cost/features/pricing are part of the market and the product. What we do see here often on Daily Tech is the notion that a $250.00 priced console is winning the "NEXGEN war."

Does the Toyota Camry outsell the Lexus IS350 or whatever analogy you wish to present? My point is the Wii, by virtue of its pricing compared to one year ago at $600.00 for a PS3 and what $400 or so for a 360 IS marketed differently obviously by virtue of you get what you pay for.

So the idea that since far more Camry's were sold compared to it's upscale cousin makes it more successful or its "winning" in an "identical market" is false. Apples and honey dew mellons.

And dude about the PS3 not being in the home theatre section? Get a life or better find a brain? The PS3 could easily operate quite well in that section if they moved it there with its feature set. But you can't say that about your Wii can you? But once again that proves my point. Argue all you like, the Wii might be flying off the shelves but they are very different consoles and priced accordingly. Cheaper is more affordable but that doesn't make it a winner, its simply not in the same class of console hardware AND price.

Cheers


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 10:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
I hate that stupid "lexux & bmw v. toyota" argument... In order for that to hold water Microsoft and Sony need to prove that they're worth the primary development dollar, with both companies losing so much market share to Nintendo I don't see that happening for much longer. We're not talking cars here, we're talking game consoles...

Yes, I do agree that I like the enhanced meida capabilities of in my case the x-box, but for others the PS3. But again, I'm part of a small segment of the market and I realize it. I'm 29, still un married living with a roommate. I have much more disposable income than the average game console cosumer, and I'm a HT enthusiest. But in the end, I'm just a small segment of the market. Both Sony and Microsoft realize this. Just look at X-box 360 archade. Priced with in range of a Wii, and marketed as being family friendly. On the sony side of things, PS2 is being pushed as a family system and PS3 is now more being marked as an "affordable bluray player" than a game console since it's very nearly a lost cause as such (affordable losly interpeted mind you).

Before the fan boy's jump on me, I should point out that I don't dislike the PS3 nor do I think it's bad hardware. It has a lot of potential to be a great system, it's just out of my price range. Considering it's out of my "yes I have more disposable income than the average middle class family and more will to spend it on electronic gizmos as well" price range, it's deffonetly out of the average consumers price range as well which is sad. I'd own a PS3 at a more reasnoble price, would have bought with out thinking if it won the amazon customer votes price of $130 (again, wii smashed the ms/sony compitition there too).


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 11:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of what you hate it's quite valid. Again specs, features, price. Margins, value, profits. Let me check the dealer lot? Yup they are still out there and being sold enough to warrant manufacturing them.

And in terems of your quite specific financial situation lets keep not forget you said yourself that Dailytech readers/posters are not the template for the mainstream.

Affordable Blue Ray Player? Seriously have we decided what is this thing is sitting next to the Wii? Adding my personal view I would say its a very powerful gaming system with an exeptionally nice bonus feature: A Blue Ray player with digital audio and HDMI.

and I love my Acura TL Type S by the way. :)


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you're not suggesting that Microsoft and Sony have higher margines on their respective consoles because you are sorly mistaken. The only company in the game actually making money selling console hardware is Nintendo, Sony + MS hope to make money back on game royalties... Over all nintendo has the most profitable stradegy, they make money on everything including game royalties.

As far as features, no other console maker can match Nintendo for in game experience, the Wii-mote + numchuk control system is revolutionary for the console industry. True games aren't HD, but some how that doesn't hurt immersion with the Wii. As far as HT features, not everyone likes the idea of building an HT around a game console. In fact with the HD-A2 sales I sold off my x-box hd-dvd and picked up an hd-a2 simply because I didn't like using a game console as my dvd player.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And in terems of your quite specific financial situation lets keep not forget you said yourself that Dailytech readers/posters are not the template for the mainstream.


Exactly what I was saying, I'm actually more likely to buy a PS3 then the market at large considering I've upgraded my entire HT system already to components still considered too new/expensive for the mass market (hd-dvd, 50" hd-tv, surround system, multiple game consoles) and it's still out of my price range. Hence the PS3 is not likely to be a mass market winner. If that trend continues and we never see an HD-WII or some such thing that could actually be bad for HD-Gamers as you'll start seeing primary development for game titles being done for SD hardware (or ED, Wii does support 480P).

This is where your car/head phone (Sir Lucas) analogies fall down. Toyota/Honda dominating the car market doesn't nessesarly affect the quality of a Lexus/Lincoln/BMW experience. Wii dominating the console market could affect the x-box/sony experience if games are designed for SD first, then ported to HD.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By BMFPitt on 11/30/2007 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that trend continues and we never see an HD-WII or some such thing that could actually be bad for HD-Gamers as you'll start seeing primary development for game titles being done for SD hardware (or ED, Wii does support 480P).
Nintendo used an older graphics chip the was only able to do SD this time around. By the time they make their next console, a chip of comparable age will be able to easily do HD.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Locutus465 on 11/30/2007 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
HD chips still seem to be compartivily struggling compared to the last gen SD chips when it comes to allowing thems selves to be neatly embedded into a console... Look at the 360 with all the RROD's the early consoles suffered (and noisie fans). Or the PS3 with it's bulky design and noisy fans. Part of the appeal of nintendo's products is the small, sleek efficient design. So it might take a while longer for HD to make it into a nintendo product then it took for N64 graphics to be upgraded to wii graphics.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By SirLucius on 11/30/2007 11:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
I see more Toyota's, Nissan's, and Honda's than I do Lexus's and BMW's. I'd say the former three have much more market share (in the US at least) than the latter 2. I don't see how that makes a difference.

Yes, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all make GAMING consoles, but they are targeted at different people. The Wii is marketed to everyone. It's a system that's designed to be entertaining whether you normally like video games or not. I know people that never owned a video game console before that now own a Wii. The 360 and PS3 are not targeting the same audience. I admit, Microsoft is trying to reach out more with the Arcade, but all you have to do is look at the games available to see who Microsoft and Sony are pushing consoles to.

Using headphones as an example, yes, all headphones are designed to allow you to listen to music, but to say that my $200 Sennheiser's are targeting the same audience as $5 Panasonic's is silly. Just because you make a similar product as someone else doesn't mean that you're targeting the same audience.

quote:
and PS3 is now more being marked as an "affordable bluray player" than a game console since it's very nearly a lost cause as such (affordable losly interpeted mind you).


I don't even know how to respond to that. Have you seen any of the recent ads from Sony? Every PS3 ad I've seen has focused on the gaming capabilities of the system with a quick snip of Spiderman 3 on Blu-ray tacked on at the end. Sony is still pushing the PS3 as a gaming console, and the only people that seem to be saying otherwise are on the internet. Besides, I thought it was decided here on DT that majority of people don't even know the PS3 has a Blu-ray drive? What sense would it make for Sony to suddenly switch gears and market the system as such?


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By cochy on 11/30/2007 9:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
He's not wrong. You are. When you walk into Best Buy is the PS3 in the home theater department or game console department? In fact it's in an aisle right next the the 360 and Wii. They are in the same market --> GAME CONSOLE. The main segment of that market are the "little Johnny"s not the "people who do their homework". Hate to break it to you.

Some households buy more than 1 system. Others only buy one. It would be interesting to see what percentage of households only buy 1 system as opposed to multiple.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
I probably should have put this here:

And dude about the PS3 not being in the home theatre section? Get a life or better find a brain? The PS3 could easily operate quite well in that section if they moved it there with its feature set. But you can't say that about your Wii can you? But once again that proves my point. Argue all you like, the Wii might be flying off the shelves but they are very different consoles and priced accordingly. Cheaper is more affordable but that doesn't make it a winner, its simply not in the same class of console hardware AND price.

Cheers


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 10:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry Loc that comment wasn't intended to you.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By cochy on 11/30/2007 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
No it wouldn't actually. Sony already tried to market the Playstation as a home theater piece in Japan known as the PSX. Guess what? It was an utter failure and never made it overseas. And comparing the Auto industry with the video game industry is sheer stupidity, so maybe you should take your own advice and find yourself a brain of your own. Wow I'm reduced to name-calling, look what you've done. There's no such thing as "upscale" video game consoles as there are in automobiles. If there WERE two different markets then Sony would have a different "economy" line of Playstations under a different brand name just like Toyota has Lexus. But they don't. So you're the only genius who sees multiple video game markets here. So either you're wrong or Sony and Microsoft an Nintendo are missing different markets here and you should enlighten them all.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By cochy on 11/30/2007 12:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cheaper is more affordable but that doesn't make it a winner, its simply not in the same class of console hardware AND price.


All well and good. But they are in the same market. They are offering different feature sets in an attempt to gain the most market share. So far it seems that Nintendo features and prices is the winning formula now. What matters is market share because that translates into more profits. If Nintendo continues to demonstrate that it's formula is the one that works best then Sony and Microsoft will start to change strategy accordingly.


RE: Nintendo already knows this
By BMFPitt on 11/30/2007 12:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This probably isn't too tough, check the pricing and features of each. Then make a list of the specs and capabilities of each. And while you're at it post your findings here.
Prices = (Base console price / price with 2 controllers, 2 total games, and XBL for one year)

Wii ($250 / $360):
- Video gaming fun for the whole family.
- 1 game included.

XBox 360 ($350 / $470):
- Video gaming fun for a subset of the family.
- 2 games included (at least for Xmas season)
- Media Center Extender

PS3 ($400 / $570):
- Video gaming fun for a subset of the family.
- Blu-Ray player.
- 1 Blu-Ray title included + 5 by MIR.

For my money, the Wii60 is the way to go. But unlike some people, I don't pretend my situation applies to everyone and try to convince them.


Complexity
By Rampage on 11/30/2007 12:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Wii is less complex technically. I don't think that really matters as much to the consumer," said Kotick.


True, unless your Wii looks absolutely horrible on your new 1080 LCD when the 360 looks gorgeous.

Which is true in my case. It really is pretty bad.




RE: Complexity
By Mach Omega on 11/30/2007 12:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Wii hooked up to an LCD HDTV. I agree it's not that hot... not bad but not hot. Some type of HD connection would have been nice.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 1:38:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
the Wii is less complex technically. I don't think that really matters as much to the consumer," said Kotick.


While probably true as evidenced by rapid PS2 sales at $130, I personally like to see new consoles pushing the boundaries and challenging the PC, even if that means they are initially costly. I don't think there's any question that this strategy has enhanced entire eras of games and introduced new gaming elements not before possible. Christ, at one time, we didn't even have 3d and the idea of running around three dimensionally in a world like our own with tons of other people was just a dream. So the idea that graphics are aesthetic-only and don't create new possibilities is stupid. There's no such thing as Quake3 gameplay on the NES. There's still a lot we can't do today WITHIN a game interactively, physics-wise, and AI-wise. Processing power is still too weak to even simulate one human brain accurately. NPCs all have programmed responses. So it sucks to see the Wii doing so well in the opposite model, because it's taking a lot of would-be developers and resources from the other model. Great third party games that might have been made on the other systems are getting scrapped in favor of multiple shovelware titles on simple, more popular hardware. The idea that traditional "non-gamers" could actually influence the industry insomuch that Nintendo dictates technological progress is kind of scary to me. We could have easily enjoyed Nintendo's games and peripherals just as well and better on the other systems if they had gone the way of Sega. Now, though, we have to drop $250 on their own hardware whose potential and longevity was undercut on day 1 for the sake of profit.


RE: Complexity
By Holytrinity on 11/30/2007 3:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We could have easily enjoyed Nintendo's games and peripherals just as well and better on the other systems if they had gone the way of Sega.


There was no way this was ever going to happen. In fact, looking at Nintendo's financials, there's no way it will happen anytime soon either.

Believe it or not, there was (and is now) actually a greater chance that Sony and Microsoft would go the way of Sega. This is not opinion, it is fact.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 5:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
I know that, the statement is not a prediction. I am saying that if it had happened, traditional gamers would have been better off. Third party efforts on the Wii have been lackluster as hell, and really the best titles are all from Nintendo, just like with the Gamecube. They're a great software developer, no question, but having to buy their hardware JUST to play their games is what's starting to get annoying. MS and Sony not only push out better hardware, but third party games are the bread and butter of both.


RE: Complexity
By Sovjohn on 11/30/2007 6:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Disagree. Totally, in fact. Sega was a valiant console manufacturer in the older times, but unfortunately for them, they made some wrong choices in their timelines (mostly). I still remember some horrid peripherals such as the SEGA CD for Genesis, and such, which never really offered value, and were only TOO expensive, limited-support "gimmicks".

Pity for them, since the Dreamcast was a very sound machine, but again, it was a bit ahead of its time, and the PS1 generation busted it (especially cost-wise).

Now, Nintendo proved their point long ago: They don't believe, so much, in specs - they believe in fun. And this has paid out VERY well in their last generation of consoles - DS was turned from a stop-gap bulky unattractive POS to an object of desire, and Wii actually made people who never played in front of a TV try things out.

As for the third party support...I think this has been a bit lackluster because the Gamecube suffered from the same fate...However, decent as a console and all, the Cube was #3 in its generation, and yet, it saw some amazing games (read: RE4...absolute bliss!).

The Wii, on the other hand, is moving forward to secure the #1 place worldwide firmly - it already is ahead by far. As such, developers not tied up with exclusive contracts (quite a lot, that is), cannot neglect such a userbase anymore.

And with the innovative peripherals coming out (Zapper), I only see the support increasing, not decreasing...Just takes sometime to develop a game, and if a company decided to do "Wii stuff" in 2007 when they saw its sales surge, I doubt they'd have games out...now.

2008 in my opinion will be a whole better year for Wii! And I should really grab one myself, along with a Mario Party game, me and some friends spent dozens of hours playing them on Cube, and they provided the fun that most games on PS2/Xbox could never even remotely start to provide.

See, its people like me that make Nintendo a profit :)


RE: Complexity
By bangmal on 11/30/2007 9:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
That is stupid. It is just like arguing they sell more diapers than jean pants, then diapers will take over pants.
Diapers are not competing the pants, so are not the Wii and xbox360/ps3.

The Wii thing is just a hype, partly because the lower price, so the morons think they could get "next-G" for lower price


RE: Complexity
By theapparition on 11/30/2007 9:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diapers are not competing the pants, so are not the Wii and xbox360/ps3.

Do you really believe that?

While everyone knows they don't compete on a technical level, they sure do on a marketing one. When time comes to buy a console, most are buying Wii's. If that choice wasn't there, it would probably go to the next level of consoles (xbox and PS3).

quote:
The Wii thing is just a hype, partly because the lower price, so the morons think they could get "next-G" for lower price

Hate to break it to you, but the morons (mass market consumer) doesn't give a rat's ass about "next gen". They buy on price and/or hype. The best thing doesn't always win. Remember, who's the largest manufacturer of graphics.......Intel. When was the last time you ever saw anyone talking about Intel's graphics seriously?


RE: Complexity
By tedrodai on 11/30/2007 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
Let me put it to you this way:

I'm a hardcore gamer, both on consoles and PCs (though I admit I've only owned more than 1 console from the same generation once: N64 and PS1). When I went to purchase a gaming console from this 'generation', I bought the Wii because #1 it was $100-250 cheaper than the other two options, and #2 it's Nintendo, so I knew there'd be no lack of great, fun games anytime soon. I guarantee Sony or MS would have my money right now instead if the PS3 competed with the Wii's price point, but they're nowhere close.

Frankly, the HD options with the XBox and PS3 are just as much of a gimick as the Wii's controller. The % of people who purchase a gaming system primarily for graphics prowess is small, just as is the % who purchase a system because of an 'innovative' controller--but there's an audience for both. They DO compete directly with each other, however, because they each push software developers to make current generation games for their system at the same time.

On another note, I frankly agree with Mr. Kotick's assessment, because that's exactly the price point I'm waiting for before considering a purchase of another gaming system. When each console provides a good experience, price is the knock-out punch.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 11:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disagree. Totally, in fact.


It's funny, because after you say this you go on to pretty much agree with most of what I say.

quote:
As for the third party support...I think this has been a bit lackluster because the Gamecube suffered from the same fate...However, decent as a console and all, the Cube was #3 in its generation, and yet, it saw some amazing games (read: RE4...absolute bliss!).


Sure, it had a few great third party exclusives, and so will the Wii. I wouldn't include RE4, btw, since it came out on the PS2.

quote:
The Wii, on the other hand, is moving forward to secure the #1 place worldwide firmly - it already is ahead by far. As such, developers not tied up with exclusive contracts (quite a lot, that is), cannot neglect such a userbase anymore.


The problem is that while the wiimote marketing may result in hardware sales, it's having a hell of a time convincing quality developers who actually know what it can and can't do. Another problem is that a bulk of the Wii's sales are "non-gamers" and these people aren't buying a lot of software since they're simply not interested in traditional genres, and that includes a flagship title like Galaxy.


RE: Complexity
By nayy on 11/30/2007 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, though, we have to drop $250 on their own hardware whose potential and longevity was undercut on day 1 for the sake of profit.


The porpuse of every company is to generate profit and Nintendo has certanly made more money than 360 and PS3 put together.

What Wii is doing is opening a new market, people how previously didn’t play videogames. And while certainly some developers will take the easy way and cash in cheaper to produce games for wii, it also means that smaller developer studios how could not afford to produce graphically intensive games now will have a chance to bring their ideas to reality.

Wii is also helping break the graphics paradigm, too many games out there have decent graphics but a poor gameplay, no polt whatsoever and aren’t very fun to play. While I agree that good graphics can make a lot of difference for a game, that doesn’t mean they are the game.

Personally I'm not worried about the future of video games, serious gamers are a big market and a profitable one too, they buy consoles, video cards, computers, etc, at premium prices paying for the necessary R&D to develop new technologies that will eventually leak to the mass market.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The porpuse of every company is to generate profit and Nintendo has certanly made more money than 360 and PS3 put together.


I don't have a problem with Nintendo making profit. The point I was trying to make is that Nintendo could have EASILY put far more power into the system while still raking in a first-year profit, and that profit would have done nothing but increased over time through revisions and cost reductions of the hardware. Why get greedy and undercut? I'm not going to support this model just because Nintendo is making hand-over-fist doing it.

quote:
Too many games out there have decent graphics but a poor gameplay, no polt whatsoever and aren’t very fun to play.


This has always been a problem, it's just that only the good stuff gets remembered from previous generations. If gaming has declined, I include the Wii and DS as the biggest offenders. I've yet to see any definitive evidence that increased costs of production on advanced platforms are contributing to this. A riskier, more expensive development cost may actually increase the incentive to create a quality title. Shovelware tends to not occur so much on the higher end systems. These "start-up" companies with "fresh ideas" end up as stuff like "Anubis" 9/10 times. Just unimaginative shovelware trying to capitalize on the the Wii craze. The wiimote apparently didn't revolutionize fun like it was supposed to.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&...


RE: Complexity
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2007 11:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
now that's the biggest load of b.s i've heard all month.

"wii and ds responsible for the decline of gaming".

20 years after nintendo saves the market, single-handedly, they're again dominating sales. and you're accusing them of ruining gaming. while nintendo's 1st party games are still leading the way. one of which, is now averaged out to the highest rated game of all time.

whatever.

wii's virtua console will have an unmatched library of 90's era classic quality gaming. the ds (and legacy gba games) are incredibly diverse...including the amazing ff 1,2,4,5,6. the gba became a portable snes, and subsequently home to some of the best games from that era. just because the same crappy shovelware that other systems have makes it to the wii, doesn't invalidate it. it's the lie perpetuated by 3rd party manufacturers. the one that sounds like "games can never be good on the wii, it's far too underpowered and gimicky". lol, mario galaxy IN THEIR FACES!

you're deranged ideology that nintendo shouldn't charge $250 for their system is silly. they're rapidly selling at that price. just because i think a viper is only worth about $60,000 doesn't mean dodge has to sell it for any less than $80,000. same holds true for consoles. whatever the market will bear. sony learns the hard way--what nintendo learned the hard way in 96.

furthermore, the idea that nintendo should throw in the towel and simply make games for other systems is so blatently fanboi-ish, i almost don't want to justify it with an answer. i just can't resist:

nintendo holds the goodie bag, the keys to the kingdom, etc. sega never had the quality, the diversity, or the longevity that nintendo has. for that matter, sony doesn't. microsoft doesn't. games aren't hardware limited. games are programmer and ingenuity limited (two things nintendo has in spades). you don't pay the cost of the system for the product. you pay for the system to get their games. the only reason for nintendo to make games for someone else's system?

to satisify rabid fanboi's who are deluded enough to believe in the inferiority of the wii.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 12/1/2007 5:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
wii's virtua console will have an unmatched library of 90's era classic quality gaming.


The virtual console is an overpriced, limited-selection piece of crap. Have fun waiting infinitely for all your favorite games to show up so you can rebuy them. Meanwhile, I can legally dump all the games that I own and emulate them perfectly on my PC or PS3's linux platform. Unlimited selection and control. The perfect retro solution.

quote:
the gba became a portable snes, and subsequently home to some of the best games from that era.


And yet plenty of major titles never got reported. Chrono Trigger comes to mind. By the way, the GBA is a far cry from even the original SNES. Nintendo, infamous for undercutting their hardware potential, chose an oddball resolution lower than the SNES native resolution (making SNES ports much harder for devs since they had to rework the graphics), chose a vastly inferior sound chip to the original SNES, and had no backlight on beginning models. I actually bought it when it came out. Big mistake. Couldn't see a damn thing and as soon as Nintendo revised the hardware, my model's resale value became nothing overnight, essentially costing me another $100 to update to one with a decent backlight. But it's all about the gameplay right, and Nintendo never f**ks through your rose-colored lenses, do they?

quote:
just because the same crappy shovelware that other systems have makes it to the wii, doesn't invalidate it.


Companies who have no business making games wouldn't dream of spending the development costs of the PS3 to release their garbage. Also, the Wii is seen as the more kid-friendly device by parents, so leech companies who feed off of parental ignorance drift over there to make their cute puzzle knock-offs and cartoony mario clones.

quote:
it's the lie perpetuated by 3rd party manufacturers. the one that sounds like "games can never be good on the wii, it's far too underpowered and gimicky". lol, mario galaxy IN THEIR FACES!


Yeah, it's a big conspiracy in the industry to create crappy games on the Wii...

Mario Galaxy would have been great fun regardless of the Wiimote controls. You don't need the wiimote to create a good game, and it ought to be true when you have Nintendo releasing games that don't or barely use it such as in Super Smash Bros. Any attempt to add motion sensing controls to a genre like fighting games would seem positively forced and stupid. And indeed, many games are forcing the issue to a game's detriment due to Nintendo's marketing hype on the wiimote. After all, what chance does a game have if it isn't using the "revolutionary" controller? They created that situation for themselves.


RE: Complexity
By inperfectdarkness on 12/1/2007 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
typical hatred directed at nintendo for pioneering the genre. happened with the control stick, et. al.

nintendo's historically been a company not to break the bleeding edge of technology. case in point? sega game gear. it was color, with a backlight...while the gameboy was monochrome without a light.

and the reason? you could play gameboy for 15 hours + on a set of batteries. gamegear had about 45 minutes. nintendo understands there's more to gaming than "who has the biggest RAM" (so to speak).

does nintendo have to spoon-feed everyone? just because developers aren't ingenius enough to properly utilize motion controls; doesn't invalidate them. what nintendo did was to showcase just how fun, intuitive, and easy it can be.

it is a conspiracy. it's just not admitted by anyone on either side. i'm sure you saw the quote on daily tech about how reviewers flipped a coin for reviewing wii games, and the losers got stuck with the job? game, set, match. when nintendo makes the powerhouse system...everyone complains its too hard to develop for. when nintendo makes a developer friendly system with a huge installed userbase & the opportunity to develop new styles of gaming...everyone complains that it's wimpy and underpowered. it's all bullshit.

funny you should use the phrase "legally dump all the games that i own" in the same sentence as you mention emulation. hardly legal by any standards. but then again, you're probably one of those people the RIAA hasn't quite managed to track down...YET.

stop knocking everything that hasn't been made specifically for the tree-shitsty. jealously is an ugly monster.


RE: Complexity
By BansheeX on 12/1/2007 8:46:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
nintendo's historically been a company not to break the bleeding edge of technology. case in point? sega game gear. it was color, with a backlight...while the gameboy was monochrome without a light.


When did I talk about the Gameboy/GameGear? I never criticized the Gameboy. I criticized the GBA. The GBA was released TEN YEARS after the GameGear and SNES. TEN YEARS. Technology had advanced remarkably since then and battery life was not an issue. They made an idiotic hardware decision on both the original DS and GBA and buyers of both got OWNED by the better quality revisions, which they were entirely capable of producing in the first place if they weren't so concerned with making hand-over-fist profit on day 1. In this regard, they need to take a lesson from Sony.

quote:
it is a conspiracy. it's just not admitted by anyone on either side.


If this is what all Wii fans think, it scares me. It really does. We need better journalists out there to explain the obvious limitations of mice and wiimote in certain genres. They're good for pointing at things and imitating basic hand movements in games. That you honestly believe there is some magical property beyond that that will be discovered and revolutionize every genre is just the height of ignorance.

quote:
funny you should use the phrase "legally dump all the games that i own" in the same sentence as you mention emulation. hardly legal by any standards.


Emulators are perfectly legal and break no copyright laws. Dumping a game that I paid to own years ago is also legal, and frankly, makes more sense than rebuying an intangible copy that only gives me the "privilege" to play on the VC. And since there are a ton of old games that will never show up on the VC, I am going to buy them on ebay and emulate them on new systems instead. I'm getting a better market value, more control, better emulation, and can choose ANY title I want. That's way better, plain and simple.


RE: Complexity
By robinthakur on 12/3/2007 10:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're talking about the GBA, one of the most SUCCESSFUL games consoles of all time like its some sort of failure and a low point for Nintendo. Progress happens. Nintendo COULD have released it at launch with a fully backlit color screen, but then it would have been priced all wrong. Nintendo has clear criteria on profitability which Sony et al could do well to take notice of. I don't think that the lower resolution stopped all those SNES conversions which did happen like the mario games. All I hear from you is sour grapes, grow up. Nintendo knows how to keep the consumer wanting more. I bought an original DS and quite happily bought a Lite when they were relased because its amazing and fabulous looking.

Re conspiracy, I don't think he was being 100% serious, its more like Nintendo was underestimated this time around in the main console race and ended up shredding their competition. I dare say that this came as a shock to Nintendo too, gathering from their own production problems. The conspiracy comes in with developers who have long been tied to Microsoft and Sony initially sounding off against the Wii.

However, as has now happened when the Wii has raced ahead of the other consoles by such a unprecedented margin they are forced to reconsider their allegiances. If you played Wii games which make decent use of the Wiimote like Trauma centre, Metroid, Zelda and SMG you'd know that actually its down to software implementation. You seem scared that anyone might want to genuinely advance gaming above making games more expensive to produce and purchase due to graphics. Assassins Creed for eg. is one of the biggest, most expensive flops in recent memory. Will anyone remember it in 10 years? Nope. Ambition is good, but at the end of the day one has to enjoy playing a game for it to be deemed a success. I think its great that Nintendo take chances still in a cool direction for gaming rather than just trying to bundle other devices into their console. Its not selfish of Nintendo to only make games for their own consoles, you pays your money and you takes your choice. The hardware is part of the charm of Nintendo and the affection one has for them is partly based on the hardware as much as it is the games.

BTW I very much doubt you DUMP (upload) games. For it to be legal, you also need to currently own the originals. The VC indeed has a market, but not to those who know about emulation. I wish they'd add arcade section for KOF/Xmen vs streetfighter/Marvel Superheroes etc. that would ROCK!!!!


RE: Complexity
By jajig on 11/30/2007 2:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Looks good on my widescreen HDTV CRT. It's just a little blocky, but after growing up with a NES that doesn't bother me.


Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By KeithP on 11/30/2007 12:27:50 AM , Rating: 3
For me, paying a little extra up front for good hardware is a lot easier to take than paying $50-$60 for every game.

Of course he wants cheaper consoles, the cheaper they are the more they will sell which translates to more games his company will sell. I think he should be more concerned about the price of software, something he has control over, rather than the cost of hardware.




RE: Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By gochichi on 11/30/2007 4:57:04 AM , Rating: 1
You're so right.

I feel $60.00 is just crazy. Like 8800GTX for $600.00 crazy. Games need to be maxed out at $49.99.

Readily available Blu-ray rentals at blockbuster, make $399 for the hardware more palatable to me. So few movies are worth $30.00 regardless of picture quality. So few games are worth $60.00, so making $60.00 the default for the "next-gen" is absurd.

If I could buy an Xbox 360 that only played games, for $199 I wouldn't buy it, I'd buy the one with all the stuff. If I could buy a PS3 that only played games, for $159, I wouldn't buy it. I want the full feature set. Charging up a storm for games is just holding these platforms down. The hardware is sweet, how can anybody argue that the hardware is sweet? The price of peripherals, extra cables, and games are what make me wince a lot more.

Good thing is, new consoles let you download game demos so games that are mediocre can be tasted without paying anything extra. $60 for a game is very unique request for me, it's like asking me to pay $250.00 for a game. It's sometimes worth it, it's just incredibly seldom. Seriously, to me, there is no difference between $60 and $250 they are both equally ridiculous. Every 100 games, 1 game will be $60 good. Hardware wise, all 3 consoles are worth their asking price, that's 3 of 3.


RE: Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By joemoedee on 11/30/2007 9:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I feel $60.00 is just crazy. Like 8800GTX for $600.00 crazy. Games need to be maxed out at $49.99.


$60.00 games are expensive, however that price point has been visited before. There were many SNES and N64 games that came out for that price, and higher.

quote:
The hardware is sweet, how can anybody argue that the hardware is sweet? The price of peripherals, extra cables, and games are what make me wince a lot more.


This is what is really preventing me from jumping back on the Next-Gen train. Say I want an Xbox 360...

Console: $349.99
Extra Controller: $49.99
Xbox Live: $49.99

I'm ~$450.00 in, and can't play a game. Throw on $60/game for a new release... I'm in over my truck payment.

quote:
If I could buy an Xbox 360 that only played games, for $199 I wouldn't buy it, I'd buy the one with all the stuff. If I could buy a PS3 that only played games, for $159, I wouldn't buy it. I want the full feature set.


The general Consumer thinks these are video game consoles. They think they're looking at a NES/SNES/Genesis/PS1/Etc, and have no clue what a Media Center is, yet alone that this piece of Electronics they're looking at is one. So, when they see $349, $499, etc to play video games... they balk.

The Wii is in the price range of a video game console, so they buy it. I think MS and Sony both missed the general target audience, and now are getting closer to it in price.


RE: Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By gochichi on 11/30/2007 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I remember buying Street Fighter 2 for the SNES for $60.00. Do you realize what kind of quality that means? What game has been re-released more times than that game?

I rest my case, $60.00 is price mark that should be reserved for the absolute best, not the default price. I wouldn't be offended if some PS3 games were $75.00 ... what offends me is that $60.00 is the base price, and let's face it, how many PS3 games are actually worth buying at all?

Some games had the Special FX chips, and there was a small premium on those as well, but the reason was evident.

If Activision was saying, price is what price is, then I wouldn't say anything. But they are argueing that hardware vendors should take an even bigger hit, when they could just lower the price of their $1.29 product to $35, $45, or whatever and help the platform.

Simply put, game wise:
Sunk costs: Development etc. whatever $10 gazillion dlls.
Profit at $60.00 --> $60.00(1) - $1.29(1) = $58.71
Profit at $35.00 --> $35.00(3) - $1.29(3) = $101.13

Hardware wise:
Sunk costs: Development etc. $100 gazillion dlls.
PS3 at $400 --> $400.00(1) - $430.00(1) = -30.00 (RED)
PS3 at $200 --> $200.00(1) - $430.00(1) = -230.00 (RED)

I can see why the PS3 isn't $200.00... I can't see why mediocre games aren't priced appropriately.


RE: Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 6:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how many PS3 games are actually worth buying at all?


As many as any other system except maybe the Wii, which has an assload of shovelware. You might want to start looking at review site lists for ANY system. 90% of what gets released gets a 7/10 or below. And the number doesn't drop much on old systems either. For every Street Fighter 2 back then, there were nine wannabe mario clones, movie conversion cash-ins, or edutainment titles starring retarded fighting super-heroes like diabetes-fighting Captain Novolin.

quote:
I can see why the PS3 isn't $200.00... I can't see why mediocre games aren't priced appropriately.


This is the stupidest criticism of the PS3 I've seen yet. $60 msrp for new games are the norm for the 360 and PS3. PC and Wii aren't far behind at $50. And who is going to decide what is shitty and what is worth $60? You? Yeah, that'll work out great having your uneducated ass slapping a $10 sticker on Uncharted the day it comes out, driving a quality developer out of business. How about we set a standard for-profit price model let people decide for themselves? Yeah, I'm going with the current strategy. Stop posting.


RE: Yeah but what about the cost of games?
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2007 11:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
banshee, you're out of your kiester.

the real question is...what is the justification of owning any systems besides a pc and a wii together?

the best visuals, fps controls, etc are all going to be on pc. the best of the console-only games are all made exclusively by nintendo. and any 3rd party games worth 2 cents will be multi-platform releases.

while i won't call you a fanboi...listen to what you're saying. you're trying to convince everyone here that nintendo wii sux balls; and none of their games are worth a shit.

meanwhile, nintendo has been putting out 9.0+ games EXCLUSIVELY for its systems: FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

no...they're only selling out of every single console they can make because a massive public outbreak of stupidity has forced people to buy such a "shitty system".

it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that each and every year, they're schooling practically every game manufacturer about how it's done.

whatever.

p.s. oh, and by the way, if you're "strapped for cash" buy a wii, and download some classics for the virtua console.

blind idiocy is dangerously contagious.


Resistance at $299
By Mach Omega on 11/30/2007 12:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
I personally think the market can support consoles at $299. That's the MAX at which they would pretty much fly off the shelves (see: Wii). That being said, if I had been running Sony and didn't have the crap task of having to push Blu-ray at the same time. I would have released the baseline PS3 with only an small HDD, no backwards compatibility, and a regular DVD drive to meet that price point. If there was any way I could have made the unit modular and still meet that price point, I would have done that as well. I would have released two additional SKUs at +$100 increments ($399, $499) with improved features with the highest priced SKU as my top of the line. Pushing Blu-ray screwed Sony's pricing.




RE: Resistance at $299
By kextyn on 11/30/2007 8:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting one thing. The games themselves are on blu-ray media so they can't put in a regular DVD drive and sell it cheap.

Personally I'd be happy to see consoles that are not multimedia centers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about different flavors at higher pricepoints. It worked for so many years, then they just started dumping as many features as they could into the machine. Why can't we have just one flavor of each console like the good ol days.


RE: Resistance at $299
By xsilver on 11/30/2007 9:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
Because for once sony thought it could win the format wars by assuming that the entire PS2 base would jump over to PS3.

If sony wins the format war then they will be finally making money off royalties rather than paying them.

And while in each generation; beta/MD/ etc. sony has been techinically superior, price has always won over in the end.


RE: Resistance at $299
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
Mach you and I typically agree on the PS3 issues but I'm going to have to part company with you on this one. As you know Blue Ray for data purposes holds a good deal of promise for gaming content and to have it standard for every PS3 SKU was a very good call. You may not see that today or in a year from now but in the long term Sony made a wise decision. I for one am very pleased that we won't be having this 360 crisis of hard drives, or 4GB data limitations.

And with over 6 million sold its first year worldwide Blue Ray is becoming more of a very nice bonus feature at the current pricing rather than a disaster.


RE: Resistance at $299
By Mach Omega on 11/30/2007 4:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I've been educated on this one. I didn't take into account the advantage of using Blu-ray for games. It will definitely give Sony an edge later in the PS3's lifecycle.

As for pricing, I think $199 is too low to have a graphics experience even comparable to a PC and, let's face it, that's the console's primary competitor. Even $299 would make it difficult, but it could be overcome with clever engineering... maybe a dual or quad SLI solution using very cheap GPUs.

Sony just had to make some tough choices if it was going to advance its business. Overall, I think it's finally staring to turn the corner. Even at the current price points, I always felt that the PS3 had the best "legs" of the next-gen consoles. MS looks good right now but the technical limitations of the 360 will be apparent within the next couple of years.


$60 Games?
By gochichi on 11/30/2007 4:34:19 AM , Rating: 4
The thing of it is, with PC gaming, you pay true market value for the equipment, but even the new and best games can be had for $35.00... you can also use a fast PC for all kinds of stuff. I bought Crysis, Bioshock, and the Orange Box all for under $40.00 in the week they were released.

So PC, "high" hardware costs (I think the only gaming exclusive item is the video card, and $200-$250 gets you a heck of a video card these days), low software costs. In any case, the affordable software makes it feel affordable as a whole.

In the case of the Wii, the hardware is a bit cheaper than the others but truly limited. The real advantage that I see is the Nintendo exclusive games which are nostalgic, and their sticking to $49 for top of the line, new releases. (Non of which, are made by Activision... at least not on the Wii). Isn't Capcom's highly rated Resident Evil 4, like $20 or $30 bucks?

So I would argue with this guy, that the consoles are expensive enough with the PS3 and the X360, and that setting a bar of $50.00/game is the least Activision could do to lure more numbers of customers. Not only to the platform, but even just to Activision's games... it's not like every single PS3 owner has every single Activision game they've released.

So "Ask not what the hardware vendors can do for you, ask what you can do for the hardware vendors". The PS3 and Xbox 360 are such a package deal. When I think of buying them, I think of all the extra stuff. If the games weren't priced like armed robbery, I'd consider them that much more. B/c the number of games that command $60.00 from me are probably like 2... Starcraft 2, and surely there's some other game. So why spend all that money on hardware when games are so pricey?

Honestly, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are so enticing as hardware, that I doubt I'd use them for games all that much. PS3, is the best movie player available (add pictures, music and it's hard to argue it doesn't provide value at $399). The Xbox 360 is a media extender, so I could watch all the TV I record on my PC... and that comes close to enough, and some of the games on the 360 do entice me. Particularly the $20 variety.

I'm not typical though, I'll admit. Many people wince at paying $1000+ on a TV but have no problem paying $600+ a year for cable on their crummy TVs. I'm the other way, I receive HD over the air, and have nice televisions... looking forward to getting a Blu-ray disk player or HD DVD at some point. I intend to rent the movies, not into spending $30 for movies.

So to me, the price of games, is a bigger deal, b/c they are the "consumables". And $60.00 for mediocre games is just outrageous. So Activision: THe combo of $500 consoles and $60 games... that combo is the most elitist of all, so if you want wide adoption, control what you can control. I believe the hardware is sexy, especially the PS3... and it's such a jack of all trades that I guess I see it as a relief that this one machine could do so many things... nobody likes a cluster of junk in their living rooms.

I don't buy hardware on a whim regardless of price, hardware takes time to hook up, it takes space, it takes time to use it, it requires software, it adds wires. So a Nintendo Game Cube may be $35.00 but it doesn't mean I'll buy it. I DO however, buy software on a whim. I bought 4 UMD movies b/c they were $2.99. I bought Bioshock for $35.00 even though it runs pretty poorly on my PC.

So my final advice to Activision, Sony, Microsoft, is that $35.00 or below is my game software sweet spot. $60 is definitely not. If everyone with a PS3 bought every game Activision put out, they'd be happy, and at $35.00 I'm sure they'd up their profits.




RE: $60 Games?
By shaw on 11/30/2007 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
We could always go back to cartridge based pricing for games! I still remember paying $80+ for games.


RE: $60 Games?
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 7:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have absolutely no idea how you got rated up to a 5 on this post.

The thing of it is, with PC gaming, you pay true market value for the equipment, but even the new and best games can be had for $35.00... you can also use a fast PC for all kinds of stuff. I bought Crysis, Bioshock, and the Orange Box all for under $40.00 in the week they were released.

While that's all fine and dandy, the PC is seriously genre limited compared to consoles (thank you for listing three FPS games so I don't have to waste time explaining it). Your value argument doesn't work on games that aren't available in the first place. I can't save money on the PC for Soul Calibur IV, Ikaruga, Ico, Castlevania, MGS4, etc.

quote:
The real advantage that I see is the Nintendo exclusive games which are nostalgic, and their sticking to $49 for top of the line, new releases. Isn't Capcom's highly rated Resident Evil 4, like $20 or $30 bucks [on the Wii]?


Yeah, except for the fact that Resident Evil 4 Wii is a re-release and not a "new" title since the core game was already released years ago for the PS2 and Gamecube. They obviously couldn't keep the price high for long.

$50 vs $60 is a huge difference? Not really. And guess what else gets released at $50 besides Mario Galaxy on the Wii regardless of quality? Pretty much everything. Woopity mother freakin doo, you are saving $10 on a bunch of third-party shovelware. Strapped for money and don't care about the latest graphics? Buy old games. Seriously. The PS2 is $100 and you can't have played more than 5% of what got released for it. Or, you know, wait for the inevitable price cuts on new games while playing old games in the meantime. You seem to state doing this, so I'm not sure what your whole rant is about. We all want cheaper games, but developers also want to exist. If I were you, I'd be way more pissed about how much music and movies cost. If you think $60 for a game isn't worth it, how about $30 for two hour movie you'll watch twice a year? Gimme a break, man.


RE: $60 Games?
By BansheeX on 11/30/2007 7:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Missed quotation label on this paragraph...

quote:
The thing of it is, with PC gaming, you pay true market value for the equipment, but even the new and best games can be had for $35.00... you can also use a fast PC for all kinds of stuff. I bought Crysis, Bioshock, and the Orange Box all for under $40.00 in the week they were released.


/edit


Expensive games
By wordsworm on 11/30/2007 5:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of posts have complained about the high cost of games. Recently I bought Oblivion. Since I shelled out the dough for the GTS, I figured I might as well try it out because of all the good reviews. I really am surprised at how much game play is involved. Compare this to an Atari game in the day, or even a 486 (90s), and those $50 dollar games were good for, at best, 2 weeks. I honestly don't know how long it's going to take me to get through Oblivion. I have been playing it for about 1 month, for about an average of 1 hour 5 days on 7. It cost me about $49+shipping for Oblivion, and I think it has a lot of value. It reminds me of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books that I kind of liked when I was a kid, but with a fair amount of depth. I think they did a great job - probably the best RPG I've ever played, and I'm not even talking about the excellent graphics (clearly there is much to improve on though).

One thing I find funny about the gaming community, though, is how quickly many people want to eat up a game like Crysis knowing full well that even the most expensive graphic cards fail to capture the full ability of the game. Why would I want to play it at half the quality it's capable of when I can wait 1-2 years for hardware to improve to the point where the game is fully exploited.

Does anyone have much information on whatever developments might be in the works in the 64 bit gaming arena?




RE: Expensive games
By Rebel44 on 11/30/2007 4:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis and few others already have 32bit and 64bit versions. In 2 years almost all new games will have to have 64bit versions because of 32bit limitations - when 32bit game needs more then 32bit can offer it will crash (Supreme Commander is known for this problem).


RE: Expensive games
By wordsworm on 12/2/2007 1:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crysis and few others already have 32bit and 64bit versions.
Nice to know. I think it looks badly on Anandtech these days that they haven't been making any effort to include 64 bit benchmarking. It's kind of absurd to include extensive benchmarks of ultra high end graphics cards, but not consider the 64 bit Vista in their tests. I'm sure there are far more people with 64 bit Vista out there than those with the budget for a 8800GTX. For the first time in about 2 years, I find myself having to go elsewhere for benchmarks and reviews.

In fact, based on the reviews I found at DT and AT, I didn't even *know* that there was a 64bit Crysis out there. Quite frankly, the website I found http://www.yougamers.com/news/13720_crysis_32_vs_6... showing 64bit vs 32bit let me down when it didn't include data showing how 64 bit with 8GB vs 32 bit with 4 GB all in DX10. One might say that it would skewer the results, but shouldn't 64bit tests have their hardware maximized to show how the extra memory might be an advantage? Of course, in the tests at that site, it gave so little information so as to largely invalidate any meaningful conclusions about the status of 64 bit. The other website I found, http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&... , provided even less detail.

The first comparison from YouGamers is really retarded, I must say. They actually run the 32 and 64 bit tests both under Vista 64. Unfortunately, even though they're examining the 64 bit question, they're not nearly on par with AT (Anandtech) for journalistic integrity. However, I still find AT lacking for doing full battery tests. I guess it takes more time, but heck, it'd sure be nice to get a better idea of what's going on in the world of hardware rather than concocting poor excuses as to why they shouldn't. 64 bit is more valid than 8800GTX in terms of market penetration, and therefore deserves to be included in reviews.


Why $199
By randomwalk16 on 11/30/2007 12:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
Its interesting to see that he picked $199 as the magic number for the price point, I'd be interested in his logic at that amount. From my (basic) economics classes, it seems that sales and price are mostly linearly related. That being said, maybe $199 is a psychological barrier... any marketing people know?

That being said, being a game developer and publisher, obviously he would like to see consoles priced cheaper (it would lead to more console sales and thus higher single-title sales for his company).




RE: Why $199
By onereddog on 11/30/2007 4:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
Realisticly sales and price arent linear. Best shown with an Indifference curve.

I think, although there is no research to indicate that 199 is a prime number for sales there is some sort of validity to this idea.
As most can imagine, past a certain point every extra dollar starts weighing down more, while below a certain point they matter less and less.
I think the 199 is that dudes opinion of where that middle point is.


Sure they do.
By Mitch101 on 11/30/2007 12:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
He is absolutely right Game Consoles Need to Be $199. Because Activision doesnt care how much Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft lose on each console. Its all about numbers and the more consoles sold even at another companies loss means more Activision titles they can sell.

Heck lets make them $49.99 what do they care about Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft loses.




I think this guy is right
By BigToque on 11/30/2007 1:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
For me, $100 would be an acceptable impulse purchase. For me to buy something that costs $200, it would have to be something that I really wanted.

I honestly don't care how much power the 360 and PS3 have because I simply couldn't justify spending that kind of money just to get the system. I wouldn't buy the Wii at it's current price.

Obviously how much people are willing to spend on something depends on the kind of extra cash they have laying around, but I think that I'm not all that unique in this case.




Yeah Right
By timmiser on 11/30/2007 4:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"In the next 24 months they all will need to be at that $199 price point, and you can imagine Nintendo will be down to the $129 price point over the next few years,"


Yep, and you still won't be able to find one on a store shelf at the MSRP.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki