Times: Sony poised to lose its 13 year title as biggest games console maker

[dionusos]

to follow your cars analogy. ford makes cars aimed at everyday drivers, Ferrari makes cars that are aimed at autophiles that own it for love of the vehicle, not for transport from A to B. i think that is what you are implying here, tho you never actually explained it.

here is the catch tho, BOTH autophile AND casual driver ARE BOTH subsets of the car market, just as BOTH sony AND nintendo ARE BOTH catering to subsets of the videogame market. it may not be completely direct competition, but its still competition. your own analogy proves wasp's point.

if you disagree with this, i invite you to explain, in minute detail, EXACTLY what your car analogy is supposed to refer to, otherwise, lets all just drop it.

If two products cater to two different subsets of a bigger category, that is not competition at all. Your one line conclusion "but its still competition" is not supported by anything you said.

Also, I refer to the big bolded quote in my previous post FROM NINTENDO stating that they don't see the two consoles in competition, but the customers always do. Guess what? You're also one of those customers that Nintendo disagrees with.

[counterproductive]

Yeah, that is likely to happen but Nintendo winning is bad for the industry. The idea of a "Next generation" console is that the new console can play games which it's predecessor can't. Can you tell me any game that is on the wii which isn't possible on Gamecube in it's current form. Controls don't count, as they are only an input and have nothing to do with the software itself.

Its not necessarily bad for the industry. It'll just help to move it in a new direction. Higher development costs for the PS3 and 360 can deter small developers, and makes the big players rely on their sure-fire IPs - developers will want titles that are likely to be commercial successes - expect more sequels. I don't see that as a good direction for the industry. Lower costs for development on the Wii's inferior hardware can open up the industry to more indie developers and increases opportunities for new IP.
I agree that each generation should bring capabilities that would be impossible on previous consoles, but I think the Wii is really leading in this aspect. Compared to the PS2 and Xbox, the way we play and interact with games hasn't really changed. Whether you like the Wii's interface or not, you have to commend them for trying something different - for better or worse.

[seebs]

1) Ford and Ferrari are both car manufacturers but they don't compete for the same market. Therefore, "They are both cars" is not enough to conclude that they are competing with each other. On the same note, "They are both gaming machines" isn't enough to conclude that all gaming machines are competing for the same market.

There are subdivisions within a market, but people do move from one market segment to another.

Are SUVs and hybrid sedans in the same market?

What happens to their respective sales when gas prices double?

2) You COMPLETELY ignored the fact that I linked a quote to Miyamoto himself saying that Nintendo's console is not competing with Sony's PS3. Like it or not, the Wii was NOT included, and that's by Nintendo THEMSELVES.

I don't think you have entirely understood the strategy here.

They are not "competing with the PS3". That does not mean they are not trying for some of the same customers; it means they are not positioning themselves as competitors.

Acknowledging the difference between a console that caters to the traditional crowd of gamers versus the a console that caters to everyone, including the elderly, women, and little children is NOT splitting hairs.

I'm not narrowing the scope of the competition. You're trying to expand it.

... Because "everyone" includes many millions of traditional gamers.

[webshark]

The existence of games on Console X that appeal to a certain crowd is not the same thing as Console X's manufacturer purposely making their gaming system appeal to that crowd. Although the PS2 had games for everyone, it was nonetheless a machine that appeals mostly to the traditional gamer. The vast majority of gamers have agreed that Nintendo this generation has brought the elderly, women, and little children into gaming. This wouldn't be possible of the PS2 already did that. So no, the PS2, in general, did not appeal to the elderly, women, and little children.

And lastly, your attempt to dismiss a quote that simply proves you wrong is laughable. READ THIS QUOTE FROM THE LINK:

"But we don't see it as a competition between the two consoles, although the customers always do."

You're one of those customers. And even Nintendo disagrees with you.

if i may be so bold as to attempt to counter said quote from several years ago before the wii had even been named.

http://kotaku.com/5026528/nintendo-r...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/5016077/nintendo-r...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/346310/nintendo-re...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/gaming/notag/npd-n...pin-292980.php

thats just the top 4 results from a quick 'nintendo npd response' search, and in each and every one of those links are official statements from nintendo in which they directly mention outselling other videogame consoles/makers and/or being the best selling console.

personally i think quotes from as recent as June's NPD reaction ought to carry a bit more weight than something from before we even knew what the wii was.

[dionusos]

There are subdivisions within a market, but people do move from one market segment to another.

Are SUVs and hybrid sedans in the same market?

What happens to their respective sales when gas prices double?



I don't think you have entirely understood the strategy here.

They are not "competing with the PS3". That does not mean they are not trying for some of the same customers; it means they are not positioning themselves as competitors.



... Because "everyone" includes many millions of traditional gamers.

You are basically the one splitting hairs by trying to argue that two non-competitors still might appeal to an overlap in differing target markets. That's not significant. We're talking in general here. That fact that "some customers" might be targeted by both Sony and Nintendo isn't enough. The question is, are Nintendo and Sony GENERALLY targeting the same market? The answer is no, as Nintendo has said they are not in competition with Sony.

Stop looking for reasons to argue with the wording, and take a look at the big picture. The point of this discussion is "Is it meaningful to say that the Wii is dominating Sony in video gaming?" The answer is no, as even Nintendo said they are not in competition with the PS3. MS and Sony have said things to the same effect.

Let me ask you this: If Nintendo saying that they don't see it as a competition between the two consoles (link here) is not enough for you to agree that the Wii shouldn't be included, then what statement WOULD be enough?

[dionusos]

if i may be so bold as to attempt to counter said quote from several years ago before the wii had even been named.

http://kotaku.com/5026528/nintendo-r...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/5016077/nintendo-r...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/346310/nintendo-re...-seems-pleased
http://kotaku.com/gaming/notag/npd-n...pin-292980.php

thats just the top 4 results from a quick 'nintendo npd response' search, and in each and every one of those links are official statements from nintendo in which they directly mention outselling other videogame consoles/makers and/or being the best selling console.

personally i think quotes from as recent as June's NPD reaction ought to carry a bit more weight than something from before we even knew what the wii was.

First, the quote from 2005 about the Wii before it was named the Wii is just as relevant today as it was then. Don't you agree that the market research and decisions concerning target market of a product are done before release of the product? And also, statements about a product's target market made BEFORE sales numbers are less likely to include gloating.

Second, I read the articles and the official statements from Nintendo only stated their approval of their own performance, and did not say anything to indicate that they see Sony as a competitor. Anything in the article about Sony being a competitor was from the article's author, and was not part of the official Nintendo statement. You need to read more carefully.

[AnonymousB]

True, but do you think that the Wii would be so popular if it didn't have the motion controller designed by Nintendo and instead used a normal pad like the previous Gamecube?.

Do you think the ps3 would have been so popular if it focused on games/gameplay instead of graphics, like the ps2?

All in all, the ps2 what graphically the worst console of the 4 last gen. xbox>cube>dreamcast>ps2, yet ps2 won...

Good games win a console war, and apparently alot of people (casuals) like easy accessible games. I like easy games as well as hardcore ones, that's why I have both a 360 and a wii. They both have their strengths, they are both next gen, and they are comming in first and second.
Ps3 is good, but a general lack of games will make it come in third, not matter the hype or popularity of the ps2

[Lefein]

Comparing PS3 sales to the Wii is like comparing sales to a toaster oven. It's irrelevant.

[webshark]

I read the articles and the official statements from Nintendo only stated their approval of their own performance, and did not say anything to indicate that they see Sony as a competitor. Anything in the article about Sony being a competitor was from the articles' author, and was not part of the official Nintendo statement. You need to read more carefully.

oh, im sorry, i was under the impression that the yellow block of text labeled "nintendo's official statement/gloat/whatever" meant that it was from nintendo, thanks for enlightening me that that is in no way associated with nintendo.

[dionusos]

oh, im sorry, i was under the impression that the yellow block of text labeled "nintendo's official statement/gloat/whatever" meant that it was from nintendo, thanks for enlightening me that that is in no way associated with nintendo.

Apology accepted. Saying you're top-selling doesn't mean Sony is in competition with you. Thus, they didn't actually say Sony was a competitor. You (and the other "customers" that Miyamoto referred to) just interpreted it that way.

[grcswoosh]

I don't get how anyone can argue that PS3 isn't the largest console out. I mean I have seen all 3 and it is clearly bigger than the other 2. I mean the Wii is tiny. I think the PS3 may be the biggest console ever, bigger than the old neo-geo even.




\sarcasm

[dionusos]

I'll re-ask a question previously posted as a general question for everyone who wants to argue that the Wii and the PS3 are competitors:

Let me ask you this: If Nintendo saying that they don't see it as a competition between the two consoles (link here) is not enough for you to agree that the Wii shouldn't be included, then what statement WOULD be enough?

[weskurtz81]

1)The world has a market for gaming consoles.
2)It is probably every console makers goal to sell as many consoles as possible right?
3)Nintendo has done that best.

They might not be taking many gamers away from the 360 and the PS3 because that wasn't the goal of Nintendo. They wanted to make a CONSOLE for the overall potential GAMING MARKET that would sell. Like I said, it might not be direct competition to the other two consoles, but PS3/XBOX owners do buy Wii's. Nintendo was brilliant here because they exploited an area of the market which was previously untapped by the other two makers. I am not sure if it's because they couldn't figure it out, but I couldn't imagine it being because they didn't want to. Every business wants to sell as much as much product as they can.

So, it doesn't matter if the Wii isn't viewed as a direct competitor to the 360 or PS3, it is a "next gen" console, and it happens to be the most successful one. Sony and Microsoft don't set the standard for what next gen means, each company makes that decision. Sony and MS were busy going at eachother while Nintendo went in another direction that turned out to be the best way to go for a sales/profit stand point.

Anyone who says that Sony or MS doesn't want to sell to the same crowd as Nintendo is insane. They would both love to sell a console to every man woman and child on earth, but so far, Nintendo is the only one that figured out how.

[tmacfan4321]

And TMACfan... Largest user base ever... Hahhahahhaha, the PS2 and its 100 million say hi!

You obviously did not understand my point.

I have never seen the PS2 on the Local News being touted as a rehab machine. It never had the mass-market appeal that the Wii has now.

I'll re-ask a question previously posted as a general question for everyone who wants to argue that the Wii and the PS3 are competitors:

Let me ask you this: If Nintendo saying that they don't see it as a competition between the two consoles (link here) is not enough for you to agree that the Wii shouldn't be included, then what statement WOULD be enough?

The problem lies with you actually believing that crap.

Of course they are competing with the 360 and PS3, who the hell are they going to compete with otherwise?

[webshark]

dino, when i get out of work in a little bit, i will find you some quotes from ninty about how they view the console market, so dont think im just ignoring your last question, but right now im trying to find stuff online on a network that blocks anything with the word 'game' in it.....

but until then, i ask this question of you. yes or no will do, there is no need for an extra explanation or the use of the word 'but'

do you agree with this statement: "the wii has been the best selling, and has sold the most consoles in the last 2 years."

oh, and so you dont violate the 25 char rule, would you also tell me who nintendo is competing with if not the ps3 and 360?

[seebs]

Let me ask you this: If Nintendo saying that they don't see it as a competition between the two consoles (link here) is not enough for you to agree that the Wii shouldn't be included, then what statement WOULD be enough?

A statement that was not being misrepresented.

Let's talk about what they said, back in March of 2006 -- that's a year or so before developers started taking titles in development for the PS3 and moving them to the Wii instead.

"Any announcement about PS3 will affect Nintendo. But we don't see it as a competition between the two consoles, although the customers always do. It depends on what expectations people have of the PS3 and Revolution. Sony have taken a long time to create their machine but it is obvious that the direction we (Nintendo) are taking is different to the PS3."

Look at other quotes from Miyamoto and Iwata. They are not approaching this as a competition. By that, they mean that they are not defining their product in terms of other products. So, if Sony announces that the PS3 will henceforth feature pterodactyls, Nintendo is not going to announce velociraptors a day later -- but Microsoft will.

They are taking a very different direction, certainly. Honda's hybrid Civics and Insights are taking a very different direction from the Hummer, too...

But that does not mean that they are not in competition for customers, because someone buying a car may pick one car over another because of those differences.

The problem is that you are (unintentionally, I suspect) equivocating. When we talk about the competition within the gaming industry, we are talking about a broader sense in which we look at the market. The quote you referred to is quite explicitly about the much narrower sense of direct positioning.

Lemme use an example from a totally different field.

There is a lucrative market for "Christian rock" which consists of religiously-themed music in the style of various "secular" bands. So, for instance, there is (or was a few years back) a band whose sole contribution to music is that they sound as much like Green Day as they are able to sound, except that their songs are all about Jesus. There are a lot of bands like this, and each of them is focused on competing specifically for the users who like a very specific kind of music. That is one kind of competition.

In that sense, no one would dream of arguing that Eminem and Dido are competitors. They produce music which is totally dissimilar. No one expects them to talk about each other, or comment on each others' music, or anything like that.

But, if you have $15 in your pocket, and you are looking at a rack of CDs, every band there is competing with every other band for your money.

Nintendo is a competitor in the game console industry. That does not mean that they are direct competitors who are focusing on the same market segments and strategies as their competitors.

[weskurtz81]

Seebs, right on point, and explained it much better than I did. I was pretty much thinking the same thing. Nintendo Wii is not a direct competitor to the PS3, but it is a competitor none the less. It does hold the potential to sway potential customers away from buying another console.....

Nintendo planned and executed very well with the Wii.

[Staticneuron]

I don't get it. I though Sony had that title because of the amount of factories they had. Didn't Ninty refuse to build more factories?

Are they talking about profits? There is no way possible that sony has maintained higher profits for 13 years straight because they are a loss leader. They bit a bullet on PS2 production and took a huge one for the PS3.

What is he focused on? the game division or sony as a whole because there is one blurb about sony's game division and then the rest was a dire piece on sony's economy.

Why does this smells like fud to me?

In that sense, no one would dream of arguing that Eminem and Dido are competitors. They produce music which is totally dissimilar. No one expects them to talk about each other, or comment on each others' music, or anything like that.

But, if you have $15 in your pocket, and you are looking at a rack of CDs, every band there is competing with every other band for your money.

Nintendo is a competitor in the game console industry. That does not mean that they are direct competitors who are focusing on the same market segments and strategies as their competitors.

Sounds very logical..... but it isn't. The lines have been already drawn with names. This is exactly like eminem and dido except people are identifying with brand names and franchises.

This is more of a MS, Nintendo and Sony issue. You can even say something like a Super Mario, Kratos and Masterchief scenario. For games this isn't that much a browse scenarios. Parents buying on behalf of their kids for the most part tries to get what a kid asks for. The majority of older gamers purchase what they want. People, either through expectation orpure desire, get what they want.

You can hear it now clearly. Those who wanted more than one.... got more than one. Those who chose to stick with one.... stuck with one. For the informed they most likely weighed their options before they took the dive and even the casuals pick up on new things that they have seen or experienced and aren't going to the store to browse.

I have said it before and I will say it again here. Every sale that the Wii gets doesn't represent a loss of a sale for the 360 and the PS3 simply because they appeal, design, and direction are so difference. There are probably very view who would have contemplated the other systems before only getting one.

Now the 360 vs PS3...... thats a different case. They mainly are pitting exclusives and appeal. There is a higher chance of an informed gamer wanting a PS60 title( halo, mgs4) and then desiring a wii title(smg), instead of a casual wanting to purchase another of those consoles for their titles. I see it every day. There are alot of DS and Wii owners, in which they would have never even considered purchasing a game system before they purchased thier nintendo's.

[seebs]

I don't get it. I though Sony had that title because of the amount of factories they had. Didn't Ninty refuse to build more factories?

They haven't exactly been rushing to build factories, but their production capacity has well more than doubled in the last two years.

Sony's title came from them having, by far, the majority of sales in the console industry last gen. It's not about profits, but percentage of sales.

[WaspMonkey]

I would like to know who Dionusos thinks the PS3 is competing with. It certainly isn't competing with other blu-ray equipped consoles. The Wii isn't competing with any other motion based consoles. The 360 isn't competing with any...what does the 360 have that's unique...joking joking joking...other services equivalent to Xbox Live.

Whether you like it or not they are all competing. For your $ and attention. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

As for no kiddie games on PS2?

Drumroll please.

\



For the PS1 crowd...

I am sure there are more but I can't think of them.

Good to see that the Lamborghini has room for a car seat in the back.

[Staticneuron]

They haven't exactly been rushing to build factories, but their production capacity has well more than doubled in the last two years.

Sony's title came from them having, by far, the majority of sales in the console industry last gen. It's not about profits, but percentage of sales.

Well Unless he's counting the PS2 in the equasion Nintendo has already done so.

Even as such I just think the way the article is written it's is unfocused and somewhat odd.

[Blu-Ray]

As long as Sony continues to make quality consoles and games, I could care less if they are in second, or even third in this so called "next gen war". I don't care to even think of it while I am playing.

[MrMiller]

Sony has stated that they were pushing for a home entertainment system at the beginning of the PS2, now they're pretty much there. The PS3 is a console regardless what some people may think, it obviously plays video games. while the PS3's sales can be slow, it's a steady increase that will continue to climb. Also with the future games coming out that we all know of, some of those games will definitely help the system sell even more.

The Wii is a console regardless of how different it is. it plays games just like PS3 and 360 but with graphics that aren't even close to the other nex-gen consoles and with a different style of gameplay....It's still a console. I believe it will be Nintendo in first, PS3 in second, and xbox360 in third. Things do change and you never know, something could happen to where the PS3 hits first. Heck, a lot of people didn't think Sony would get even close to where they are now, look at Sony now. Yet there are still people in denial saying the same stuff they said over a year ago.

[skarekrow]

Alright let me rephrase my past few posts. "I don't believe what your saying will come true. The PS3 is on the rise just like the PS2 did. Completely ditching the console would be like getting rid of games series like Halo, GTA, FF etc." All I meant was That the comment seemed kinda trollish. I jumped on that real quick and I'm sorry I did.

skarekrow it seems you dont faith in the 1st party plan. i strongly disagree with that. i felt for a long time that 1st party is where sony needs to direct its attention. i think they have done all they can do to get 3rd parties on their side. if they wanna favor other consoles thats on them. with M$ in the game now its like you have to kiss *** jus to get 3rd parties to work on your console.

the way i see it is its not like we cant get these games from 3rd parties. but i think the focus SHOULD be on internal studios. that has aways been what seperates consoles since this gaming thing started. its like this, if you dont wanna make that shooter for me fine ill make 1 myself. if you dont wanna make that sports game for me fine ill make that too. screw 3rd parties. M$ has given them too much power and now they expect sony to kiss *** jus cause M$ has.

its like running a store. ill sale these lays chips in my store. but if lays wants to start acting like idoits when i know how to make better tasting chips. then ill get behind my own product and start pushing that instead.

i agree that they shouldnt ONLY rely on first party. but i dont think that need to do more than what they already are. 3rd parties arent being stopped when its time to create ps3 games by sony. i havent heard anything about sony turning 3rd parties around at the door.

now the other thing is. what can sony do if their 1st parties are gonna get ripped jus because they are on a sony console? thats not their fault and all they can do is continue to make undeniable games which the media jus cant refuse. really its sony against the world at this point.

No, I dont mean that they are "shooing" them away, but they are allowing most of them to escape. I agree with it being "Sony against the world" at this point and that is where the 3rd party tactics come in. If they want to focus soley on first party titles, they need to first attract and audience so that they can see what Sony has to offer. That cant be done if the games that they are firmiliar with are available on a cheaper console. Resistance was over looked, under judged and critisized harshly because the higher ups knew that it wouldnt come to their system at any given point. If you look at games like Metal Gear Solid 4, There was a chance tghat it could go to the 360 as well so people didnt really bad mouth it or judge it un-fairly, if it was a PS3 only game for sure, it would have been bland on the reviews and ratings.

They need exclusive third party games that are amazing and firmiliar in order to draw a crowd and suck people in to get them open their eyes to the first party games that are being **** (pardon my french) on.

[skarekrow]

i agree that they shouldnt ONLY rely on first party. but i dont think that need to do more than what they already are. 3rd parties arent being stopped when its time to create ps3 games by sony. i havent heard anything about sony turning 3rd parties around at the door.

now the other thing is. what can sony do if their 1st parties are gonna get ripped jus because they are on a sony console? thats not their fault and all they can do is continue to make undeniable games which the media jus cant refuse. really its sony against the world at this point.

No, I dont mean that they are "shooing" them away, but they are allowing most of them to escape. I agree with it being "Sony against the world" at this point and that is where the 3rd party tactics come in. If they want to focus soley on first party titles, they need to first attract and audience so that they can see what Sony has to offer. That cant be done if the games that they are familiar with are available on a cheaper console. Resistance was over looked, under judged and critisized harshly because the higher ups knew that it wouldnt come to their system at any given point. If you look at games like Metal Gear Solid 4, There was a chance that it could go to the 360 as well so people didnt really bad mouth it or judge it un-fairly, if it was a PS3 only game for sure, it would have been bland on the reviews and ratings.

They need exclusive third party games that are amazing and firmiliar in order to draw a crowd and suck people in to get them open their eyes to the first party games that are being **** (pardon my french) on.