View Full Version : Why the Wii can't play movies
PSP: Plays movies. Game sales are low.
PS3: Plays movies. Game sales are low.
Wii: Does not play movies. Game sales are high.
Movies and video games are both kinds of entertainment. They are competition for each other. Sony has some incentive to play movies, because Sony sells movies. Nintendo does not sell movies. Nintendo is only competing with movies. Thus, if you have a Wii, and you want to play with it, you buy games. Because that's what it does.
This is why game sales are higher on Wii and DS than on PS3 and PSP.
I had not understood this before.
BoOGieM0nst3r
06-08-2008, 10:56
well i don't think you can just reason that if poeple weren't able to play movies on psp or ps3 they could have higher game sales.
i mean the 360 can play movies and 360 has incredible game sales.
ive personally never used my ps3 or psp to watch movies. if i buy a console its for the games not all the extra stuff thats bundled in. although im not gonna complain if it has the potential to do other things than play games. would be like turning down free beer
The main reason why I bought the ps3 was to get a cheap bd player. Even though the games are good the film possibilities are the main issues for me.
That's funny logic.
From what I gathered, it was a way to keep production costs down. Nintendo doesn't have to pay a royalty fee to play DVD's. I think one their other reasons (excuses) was that people already had at least one DVD player in the house, so why add another?
audioboxer217
06-08-2008, 19:20
That's funny logic.
From what I gathered, it was a way to keep production costs down. Nintendo doesn't have to pay a royalty fee to play DVD's. I think one their other reasons (excuses) was that people already had at least one DVD player in the house, so why add another?
This is the reasoning behind the DVD player being left out. In fact it's a pretty good paraphrase of what Iwata said when the lack of movie playback was first announced (I guess you could say announced...it was actually more like "discovered")
+rep for setting the record straight and putting an end to this fuzzy logic statement.
"IF [console] = movie player THEN game sales < good" is basically what he is stating and I find this to be inaccurate due to the XBOX360's numbers.
And the PS2 did so well because...?
This is just a ridiculous statement.
This is the reasoning behind the DVD player being left out. In fact it's a pretty good paraphrase of what Iwata said when the lack of movie playback was first announced (I guess you could say announced...it was actually more like "discovered")
+rep for setting the record straight and putting an end to this fuzzy logic statement.
"IF [console] = movie player THEN game sales < good" is basically what he is stating and I find this to be inaccurate due to the XBOX360's numbers.
You do have a point about the 360. But consider: The 360 is advertised 100% in terms of games. The ads are all about games. Sony's put a huge amount of effort into attracting people who just want to play movies.
In the case of the 360, those people will get a much cheaper movie player. In the case of the PS3, though, it was (for a long time) the cheapest blu-ray player, and a while back it was announced that it was the only blu-ray player that would have full support for future blu-ray spec updates.
Similarly, the PSP doesn't have to worry about competing with portable DVD players so much, because it's much smaller than they are, and not much more expensive.
While it's true that keeping costs down is certainly a big part of the equation, I think Sony's game sales problems may well have to do with the millions of customers who didn't get the system with any intention of playing games for it, who don't look at or think about games, who don't check release schedules for upcoming games, and so on.
valleyshrew
06-08-2008, 20:04
Faulty inductive reasoning. The gamecube wasn't as popular as the ps2. The current factors are:
Price, advertising, market appeal, games.
I think taking the movie ability makes it cheaper, and this is part of the appeal of the wii, but it's not the main motivating factor.
DrFeelgreat
06-08-2008, 20:07
I posted something about the Wii in my blog, I think you should check it out.
LINK (http://ps3forums.com/blog.php?b=442)
Faulty inductive reasoning. The gamecube wasn't as popular as the ps2. The current factors are:
Price, advertising, market appeal, games.
I think taking the movie ability makes it cheaper, and this is part of the appeal of the wii, but it's not the main motivating factor.
The gamecube wasn't as popular as the PS2 -- and I never said it was. But it sold a LOT of games compared to its installed base.
My prediction isn't "movies -> fewer overall sales". It's "movies -> lower attach rate".
It could be argued that Sony are the only console manufacturer that actually want people to use their devices as movie players, they own a movie studio after all.
GameSpawn
06-08-2008, 21:08
Your logic is flawed. The PS2 plays movies and it is the pinnacle of unit sales. What else has reached 100 million, oh that's right the PS1 which was before DVD's time, but it played music CDs too. What is the point of using a format in your system if you aren't going to get the most out of it?
Here is the simple answer why the Wii doesn't play DVDs, yet has a DVD drive: NINTENDO IS TOO DAMN CHEAP TO PAY FOR THE DECODER LICENSING! Thye are with the Wii, just as they were with the GameCube. The GameCube was going to originally have DVD support, but Nintendo got cheap, cut it, and shrank the disc disc to the smaller 3 in. It is a known fact, Nintendo is cheap; that way they can maximize their hardware profits for the short run.
I dont agree. Its faulty reasoning.
On 360, I have seen media (from HDDVD to downloadable movies and MP3) commercials, as well as game commercials. And look how well its doing.
And the PS2 also did great, and not only did they continue to advertise its DVD capabilities, they improved them in a later PS2 revision.
Sure some people bought the PS3 for its movie playing capabilities only, and those sales factor into the overall attachment rate, but for the average gamer, the attach rate is probably unaffected by the other capabilities of the machine. And one could even argue that the first group (the movie buffs) could eventually buy games that may be attractive to them, thus expanding the userbase of gamers, much like those who bought Wii for Wiisports alone may one day buy more than that.
Your logic is flawed. The PS2 plays movies and it is the pinnacle of unit sales.
Look, I agree that the argument has flaws, but what you say here is totally irrelevant.
I was not talking about unit sales. I was talking about attach rate.
Do you understand that these are different?
Here is the simple answer why the Wii doesn't play DVDs, yet has a DVD drive: NINTENDO IS TOO DAMN CHEAP TO PAY FOR THE DECODER LICENSING! Thye are with the Wii, just as they were with the GameCube. The GameCube was going to originally have DVD support, but Nintendo got cheap, cut it, and shrank the disc disc to the smaller 3 in. It is a known fact, Nintendo is cheap; that way they can maximize their hardware profits for the short run.
And, apparently, maximize profits in general.
Here's the thing. Ignoring any hypothetical competition: I prefer Nintendo's strategy. I don't WANT to pay for any more licenses for DVD player software.
Sure some people bought the PS3 for its movie playing capabilities only, and those sales factor into the overall attachment rate,
Quite noticably, even.
but for the average gamer, the attach rate is probably unaffected by the other capabilities of the machine.
For the pure gamer, sure. But what about all the people bragging about the hundreds of movies they've gotten? That's a couple thousand dollars they didn't spend on games, and a few hundred hours they didn't spend playing games.
And one could even argue that the first group (the movie buffs) could eventually buy games that may be attractive to them, thus expanding the userbase of gamers, much like those who bought Wii for Wiisports alone may one day buy more than that.
They might indeed eventually buy some games, but my guess is that overall, they reduce the attach rate of the system -- and thus make life a bit harder for game developers.
Well, I don't exactly agree with all that. I do think that an emphasis on multimedia playback is what is hurting the PSP as many more are using it for uses other than gaming for the most part I would presume. As for the PS3 I don't think it's as severe, if anything it's more like when the PSP started off in that was a great idea to meld multimedia and gaming features simultaneously into an all in one device, but eventually favor in one direction or another may end up taking over and becoming the "reason" for owning the system.
Well, I don't exactly agree with all that. I do think that an emphasis on multimedia playback is what is hurting the PSP as many more are using it for uses other than gaming for the most part I would presume. As for the PS3 I don't think it's as severe, if anything it's more like when the PSP started off in that was a great idea to meld multimedia and gaming features simultaneously into an all in one device, but eventually favor in one direction or another may end up taking over and becoming the "reason" for owning the system.
I am still not entirely convinced that it's a great idea. I think it's one of those things that sounds great on paper, but which tends to end up making a system which isn't as good at either thing as it could be.
Sony has absolutely suffered from customer confusion about what the PS3 is, and I think that's at least partially because they've advertised it as everything from a movie player which happens to play "PS3 games" to a video game system which happens to play movies. There was a brief attempt at this a while back, under the brand name "nuon" or something, where there were a few DVD players which happened to be able to play these special games designed just for them... But no one cared, and people didn't end up buying the games, so it fizzled.
Now, I don't think the PS3's actually in danger of that, but a customer who's mostly interested in movies might assume it's the same sort of thing, given an ad in which the only reference to games is small print at the bottom of the page. (And yes, Sony produced one such ad.)
Everything I know about the PSP suggests that it has a fair number of games -- and yet, look at its attach rate compared to the DS. Obviously, SOMETHING is keeping people from buying games.
For the pure gamer, sure. But what about all the people bragging about the hundreds of movies they've gotten? That's a couple thousand dollars they didn't spend on games, and a few hundred hours they didn't spend playing games.
But they would have spent it on DVD movies. The point is people who want to buy a movie, will buy it regardless of format. People's budgets for gaming are finite, just like their movie budgets, golf budgets, and every other hobby. I don't buy more than a game every month or so on average because I dont have the time to play that many.
And on Wednesday nights I would watch a movie regardless of whether it was theater, Bluray or DVD, instead of playing video games, whether my console played DVDs, Blurays or whatnot. Its just the way my schedule is and has been for years (potluck dinner and a movie with friends every wednesday for going on 6 years now).
For a gamer, he has a time budget for games, and whether he owns a console that plays movies or not, he will spend that time and money budget on games. Additional capabilites of the hardware are not a detriment, but a plus, as long as the price difference is not prohibitive. A video ipod does not make you listen to less music necessarily, it just lets you also watch videos if you feel like it.
They might indeed eventually buy some games, but my guess is that overall, they reduce the attach rate of the system -- and thus make life a bit harder for game developers.
I agree. But then developers who are smart look at the sales of other games, rather than a pure attachment rate number. Just like Wii developers look at the sales of third party games when compared to first party and see a gap which also gives them some pause. I give them credit that they are much smarter than fanboys on forums here and there.
@ Seebs
Well, while I don't agree with everything you've noted, I didn't mean to imply that including multimedia playback is a good idea. I don't think it's a bad idea at least, but I don't think it should be given priority emphasis like we saw with the PSP early on and now the PS3. The PSP I feel suffered from that which is why it's in the position it's in now, among other things. It might be a bit earlier to say as much about the PS3, but you do have a point about the confusion aspect regarding the PS3. Who was it, Square Enix, I think that called out Sony to emphasize the PS3 as a gaming platform as they felt Sony was spending too much time trumpeting its Blu Ray media features.
But they would have spent it on DVD movies.
Maybe. Blu-ray's more expensive, and a fair amount of what people are doing is probably re-buying movies they had on DVD.
For a gamer, he has a time budget for games, and whether he owns a console that plays movies or not, he will spend that time and money budget on games.
I don't think this is generally true. I have a time budget for entertainment; movies and games are in direct competition for that time.
I agree. But then developers who are smart look at the sales of other games, rather than a pure attachment rate number. Just like Wii developers look at the sales of third party games when compared to first party and see a gap which also gives them some pause. I give them credit that they are much smarter than fanboys on forums here and there.
The real gap is between half-hearted shovelware and real games. I mean, sure, Wii Sports is out in the stratosphere, but if you look at other games, Nintendo's lead isn't so ridiculous -- and they've got a similar lead compared to other companies' sales on other systems, too. They're just very good at making games which sell.
Third party game sales (excluding shovelware) on Wii are better, in general, than third-party game sales on PS3. Given the much lower development costs, that's excellent, and developers are responding as you'd expect -- by developing more games for Wii.
Yeah, there's always gonna be short-sighted attempts to cash in on the mythical "casual" player who will play anything you throw at him. Those generally fail. The games that are actually fun to play are selling some copies. Not always as many as they deserve, but then, that's true on every platform. Sure, Zack & Wiki did poorly compared to its quality... But then, it was essentially unadvertised, and the box art makes it look like a spinoff of a kid's TV show you've never seen. Okami, which was absolutely brilliant, did so poorly on PS2 that Capcom split up the studio.
Emo-Mercenary
06-08-2008, 22:32
:lol:
What the f*** is this about? Its flabbergasting me!
It's about the philosophy which different vendors have brought to gaming.
Nintendo is trying to build a games console, which is a device which plays games, which plays games, and which also plays games. They have focused on making it easy to get into, offering a few games that are designed for mass appeal to people who have not historically been gamers, and then a series of more involved games that may help draw these users into playing more "advanced" games. That has been mistaken by many people for a focus on "dumbed-down" games, leading to a bunch of shovelware crap and minigame collections from companies that don't see what Nintendo's doing.
Sony's trying to produce the most powerful, awesomest, machine ever for people who are already extremely experienced with games.
The net result is that the PS3 has a huge number of fans who take it as a point of pride that "non-gamers" can't touch their console -- and who are absolutely flabbergasted by the "non-gamer" console selling so well. They think it's a fad because they wouldn't want to play these games... Which is silly. The niche market is always small.
EbonySeraphim
06-09-2008, 00:06
I think it's a little bit more complex than that. PSP is completely crackable from software entirely. Slims are harder to crack but still easy enough if you know someone that has a fat PSP and some...
Soldier 95B
06-09-2008, 01:50
I think Nintendo had a goal of reducing the entry price of their console as much as possible. They assumed that the majority of house holds have a DVD player (or many more than just one dvd player), so they chose to reduce costs by eliminating DVD royalty fees. They also eliminated some software development costs for the Wii by not having to create a GUI or infrastructure for the DVD menu.
Now the question is, did the elimination of the DVD royalties actually benefit the consumer in a reduced cost, or did the cost of the Wii remain the same, but putting more money into Nintendo's pocket.
The thing that really suprised me is that my Wii can't even play music CD's :(
aceofspades21
06-09-2008, 02:09
Nintendo isn't into gimmicks such as music and movies, they just want there to be a plethora of games for all to enjoy that won't distract from a true gaming experience.
I personally think it's the right approach. If you want both gaming and movies/music, then PS3 by all means. But if you want a strictly gaming machine, Wii works just fine.
Not putting down PS3, just saying that Wii was made for gaming and it does just that.
EbonySeraphim
06-09-2008, 03:03
Nintendo isn't into gimmicks such as music and movies, they just want there to be a plethora of games for all to enjoy that won't distract from a true gaming experience.
You should probably rephrase that. Calling movies a gimmick is hardly a reasonable statement coming from anyone who understands the slightest about the entertainment industry as a whole. The movie business is still far greater and larger than games and far more people are consumers of that industry as well.
You should probably rephrase that. Calling movies a gimmick is hardly a reasonable statement coming from anyone who understands the slightest about the entertainment industry as a whole. The movie business is still far greater and larger than games and far more people are consumers of that industry as well.
Well, not speaking for aceofspades here, a gaming console leveraging novel features like music/movie playback is something of a gimmick. Granted, the music/movie industry are large but I don't think anyone is claiming that the industries/markets themselves are mass oriented gimmicks. The same way that a cell phone these days can have a number of features not necessarily related to its core function a gaming console with features outside of its primary orientation are pretty much extra features or gimmicks to further expand the systems' appeal and marketability, ideally speaking, in any case.
It's a feature which is not part of Playing Games.
Look, I like movies as much as the next guy... Oh, wait. I don't. I don't care much about movies. Sure, I have a couple thousand DVDs, but the majority of them are TV shows, and I don't CARE about image quality or anything. I just like the convenience. I watch movies on DVD because it's cheaper than going to a theatre.
I seriously have no interest at all in being able to play movies on a game machine. It's not what I got it for.
A gimmick is a feature which sounds cool on the box, but which isn't part of the product's intended use, and doesn't help it do its job. For a video game machine, movie playback is a gimmick. For a movie player, game play is a gimmick. For an all-in-one machine, neither is a gimmick, really.
It is true that the movie business is larger than the game industry. Sort of.
In fact, revenue for the video game industry exceeds revenue for the movie industry.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080124-growth-of-gaming-in-2007-far-outpaces-movies-music.html
Nintendo is a gaming company. They are focused on games, and they want to push for a future in which games outpace movies. They are well on their way.
The idea that movies are huge and unchallengeable, and games are small and niche, is an idea which was probably reasonably accurate five years ago. It's wrong now, and it's getting wronger faster as Nintendo's revolution progresses.
Vulgotha
06-09-2008, 04:28
Eh.. This logic is pretty bad if you ask me. I think it goes a bit deeper.
Edit: Ebonyseraphim said it pretty well.
Eh.. This logic is pretty bad if you ask me. I think it goes a bit deeper.
There is a huge philosophical difference. Nintendo's focused on games. Sony's not.
Edit: Ebonyseraphim said it pretty well.
Yes, but based on a simply false factual claim.
I don't really know this but did the gamecube play dvds?
Vulgotha
06-09-2008, 04:35
How was his claim non-factual seebs?
I don't really know this but did the gamecube play dvds?
No. Mostly.
Panasonic released a device which was based on the gamecube, but which also played DVDs.
The Nintendo gamecube didn't even have a large enough drive to hold a standard-sized DVD; it plays the half-sized (or so) discs you see in a lot of video cameras, but it only plays the ones that have games on them.
Vulgotha
06-09-2008, 04:37
There was a version in Japan which could play DVD's though Mynd.
Grim__Reaper
06-09-2008, 04:48
Seebs reminds me of old yeller
zeon9881
06-09-2008, 04:58
wait so your saying adding more features to a console is bad, im sorry but i for one like to have more content in a game for instance,
Metal gear solid 1-Cd-i think it was somewhere around 200-600 MB
metal gear solid 2~3-7GB
metal gear solid 4-50GB
so yea i think features are good, and if you want to go into sales than please lets go
ps2-sold very well
360-sold very well
ps3-starting to get a updrift
oh and btw theirs rumors going around about DVD wiis in Japan
http://www.wiinewsdaily.com/wii-dvd-rumors/
wait so your saying adding more features to a console is bad
No.
I'm saying that adding non-game features to a console may reduce game sales on the console.
And you're talking about # of systems sold -- and I'm talking about sales per console.
zeon9881
06-09-2008, 05:01
No.
I'm saying that adding non-game features to a console may reduce game sales on the console.
And you're talking about # of systems sold -- and I'm talking about sales per console.
oh ok, but personally i think thats squat i mean all of my friends who i know got ps3 cause of blu-ray well most of them, heck my brother got it cause of blu-ray
oh ok, but personally i think thats squat i mean all of my friends who i know got ps3 cause of blu-ray well most of them, heck my brother got it cause of blu-ray
Okay.
And, on average, how many video games has each of them bought for the system?
zeon9881
06-09-2008, 05:11
dont know man, i dont go and search up thi stuff, i go and play the video game if its good
and when you say "bought for the system: do you mean exclusives, or as in averages
ok well lets look at it this way "how many good rated games are their on wii" and when i say good i mean atleast a 7
EbonySeraphim
06-09-2008, 05:12
Well, not speaking for aceofspades here, a gaming console leveraging novel features like music/movie playback is something of a gimmick. Granted, the music/movie industry are large but I don't think anyone is claiming that the industries/markets themselves are mass oriented gimmicks. The same way that a cell phone these days can have a number of features not necessarily related to its core function a gaming console with features outside of its primary orientation are pretty much extra features or gimmicks to further expand the systems' appeal and marketability, ideally speaking, in any case.
I wouldn't call any cell phone feature a gimmick actually. A lot of those features are useful when people are truly mobile. I've definitely used my cell phones calculator and alarm clock on multiple occasions. I'd use far more features if they were available to me like web browsing, media playback, and a camera if they were on my phone. My guess is that a lot of manufacturers don't necessarily put those features in there strictly for the purpose of expanding the marketability of their product. I think it's more like they realize that they have all the necessary parts to do certain functions. All someone has to do is write the software and they have another useful feature. In fact, if they don't do what is easily possible, there will be some wiser people that question why those features aren't there when they are easy to add at little extra cost.
Yes, but based on a simply false factual claim.
What false claim was that?
Vulgotha
06-09-2008, 05:14
Yeaaa I was wondering the samething Ebony.
What false claim was that?
That movies are hugely bigger than games. They may have been in the past, but the game industry now has higher revenue. Cinema movies have not done so great over the last decade, and gaming's been booming.
Think about all the millions of people paying $3 to download Tetris on their phones. "Video games" are becoming ubiquitous.
I already posted a link to one of the many articles pointing out that video games were a larger chunk of revenue than movies in 2007. The video game industry will probably be larger than movies by just about any measure in a few more years if it keeps doing well -- especially if, say, some crazy Japanese company went out of their way to expand the market.
Ummmm.........Ok, whatever ya say.
zeon9881
06-09-2008, 06:43
yes well how many people actully buy texis on tetris on their cell phone, i barly see people play video games on their cell phone
and dude, unless you have a link to your opinion than im not gonna belive it, do you know how big hollywood is let alone bollywood?
PSP: Plays movies. Game sales are low.
PS3: Plays movies. Game sales are low.
Wii: Does not play movies. Game sales are high.
Movies and video games are both kinds of entertainment. They are competition for each other. Sony has some incentive to play movies, because Sony sells movies. Nintendo does not sell movies. Nintendo is only competing with movies. Thus, if you have a Wii, and you want to play with it, you buy games. Because that's what it does.
This is why game sales are higher on Wii and DS than on PS3 and PSP.
I had not understood this before.Seebs you almost always post a lot of sense and so I can only assume this was posted on your day off :D
Seriously, I think it's bonkers that you believe this is even true. The 360 has the highest attach rate of all the consoles and doesn't have a problem shifting games. Also, didn't Nintendo announce last November that they would be creating a Wii in the future which would also allow DVD playback? If they thought this would impede game sales on their console then I think they wouldn't have done that.
Btw, the fact the Wii can't play DVD's is a big blocker for me. I thought about getting one for my eldest but he also watches a lot of car DVD's and when given the choice (due to space constraints on where it needs to go) he chose a dvd player over the Wii. If the Wii had done both it would have been a no brainer. I was shocked at the time (just a few months ago) that it couldn't play DVD's. I hadn't even realised that before then.
yes well how many people actully buy texis on tetris on their cell phone, i barly see people play video games on their cell phone
and dude, unless you have a link to your opinion than im not gonna belive it, do you know how big hollywood is let alone bollywood?
I. Already. Posted. A. Link. In. This. Thread.
Is it really so much to ask that you follow the link? I mean, I posted it already. A link to a thing showing the comparative changes in the video game, music, and movie industries in the US.
But you're too busy to actually READ the posts you so gleefully attack.
Post #28:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080124-growth-of-gaming-in-2007-far-outpaces-movies-music.html
Video game sales not including consoles or gaming hardware were a tiny chunk less than total box office sales.
The video game industry is growing very rapidly, and has huge penetration in many markets.
The days when the movie industry was twenty or thirty times the size of the video game industry are over.
(various points, see previous post)
The 360's high attach rate has to do with its very narrow targeting. All the games are in the same genres, and all the owners like those genres.
I don't know of Nintendo announcing DVD playback for the Wii; there's been tons of rumors, but I haven't seen anything yet. Eventually, I suspect they could, but right now, they're seeing an excellent attach rate -- in fact, while the 360's lifetime total attach rate is higher, the periodic attach rate hasn't been so impressive of late. It's still probably higher than the Wii's... But outside of the US, that still leaves 360 games selling a lot worse, and costing more to make. (In the US, the 360's initial lead was large enough that they may have the best software sales for a few more months.)
The 360's high attach rate has to do with its very narrow targeting. All the games are in the same genres, and all the owners like those genres.
I don't know of Nintendo announcing DVD playback for the Wii; there's been tons of rumors, but I haven't seen anything yet. Eventually, I suspect they could, but right now, they're seeing an excellent attach rate -- in fact, while the 360's lifetime total attach rate is higher, the periodic attach rate hasn't been so impressive of late. It's still probably higher than the Wii's... But outside of the US, that still leaves 360 games selling a lot worse, and costing more to make. (In the US, the 360's initial lead was large enough that they may have the best software sales for a few more months.)I haven't seen any data on periodic attach rates and so I can't speculate on that. Even if the attach rate is down to the genres a game falls within it's evidence enough that if you bring out the right games for your target audience you drive a higher attach rate - ergo, the fact the system can play movies has very little to do with it.
FYI - here's a link to one of the many news articles on Nintendo adding DVD play back support - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/11/09/wii_dvd_playback_delayed/
Seems strange they are considering this if they believe it will damage game sales
The thing is that no one in his right mind would repurchase his entire collection on UMD just to be able to watch a movie on a 5 inch screen when on a bus.
The same principle applies to Blu-Ray. No one is going to buy a movie they already own just because it has better resolution (you need a great TV to notice anyway).
I wouldn't call any cell phone feature a gimmick actually. A lot of those features are useful when people are truly mobile. I've definitely used my cell phones calculator and alarm clock on multiple occasions. I'd use far more features if they were available to me like web browsing, media playback, and a camera if they were on my phone. My guess is that a lot of manufacturers don't necessarily put those features in there strictly for the purpose of expanding the marketability of their product. I think it's more like they realize that they have all the necessary parts to do certain functions. All someone has to do is write the software and they have another useful feature. In fact, if they don't do what is easily possible, there will be some wiser people that question why those features aren't there when they are easy to add at little extra cost.
Well, just to let you know, a gimmick is not defined as a bad thing really; people tend to use it as a negative term but that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not saying those features aren't useful, I'm just saying that they are extra "incentives" tacked onto the core device, another way to broaden the appeal of the product, a gimmick. However, I do disagree somewhat the idea that just because people might question why the feature isn't there doesn't mean that the feature was somehow "meant" to be there to begin with. Some might see it as a good idea but I imagine many more would assume as such about certain products because other products have had them, otherwise, most products starting out with some kind of core functionality are usually bought as a result of that core feature. For example, does my Nintendo DS need an alarm clock? No, but I appreciate that it's there because I have used it as a secondary back up years ago when my old room clock was on the fritz, but it's not exactly necessary. Granted, it's not as critical an element as say, dvd/cd playback on a games device, but the general idea still stands.
That movies are hugely bigger than games. They may have been in the past, but the game industry now has higher revenue. Cinema movies have not done so great over the last decade, and gaming's been booming.
Movies are still bigger than games though given the site you just gave. The only thing you can argue is that games are growing rapidly but that doesn't change what the situation is now.
Staticneuron
06-09-2008, 22:18
But yet you cross the barrier here. Number 1. Those two consoles mentioned sell more games because their installed base is higher. And number 2: The titles that people want to play In addition to new...