Console Wars VI

[DrSpike]

Maybe so. I believe the poster in question was casting about to find arguments against the success of the Wii, and that was the best he could do at the time.

[El_Cid]

yeah i think i remember the name of the tro....erm poster.......no it escapes me

But yeah in general the turn around for nintendo has been massive. Good for gaming as a whole? probably.....and i don't tend to judge 'good for gaming' as being all about the bottom line.

Diversity i think is key for the full potential of gaming to be realised and nintendo have certainly helped diversify the field. I doubt i will ever personaly want to own a Wii.......but if i had kids etc then it would certainly be number 1 on the list, as long as 'they' understood console gamings limitations and for every 1hour spent on that kind of gaming they did 3hours on PC

[DrSpike]

Social services would no doubt want to investigate your crimes.

[Nikolai]

I could do a quick dig. Probably hard to find anything direct, but let's see.

http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=21098

EA revenue per platform:

FY2007:

360: $481M
PS3: $93M
Wii: $65M

Where do you think most of their profits are coming from?

Ubisoft revenue by platform:
Wii
2007/2008 - Q4: 9% // Full Fiscal Year: 10%

Xbox 360
2007/2008 - Q4: 33% // Full Fiscal Year: 26%

Where do you think most of their profits are coming from?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5279263&highlight=Wii+revenue#post5279263

Joystiq and NPD add some perspective similar to what I've said here: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/09/ni...ifies-some-de/

Wii 3rd party sales: 33 million (56% of software)
360 3rd party sales: 67 million (82% of software)

Click the link for a new chart version also.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5374798&highlight=Wii+revenue#post5374798

It's quantity, not revenue.

asleep also curiously doesn't mention that this doesn't reflect current sales -- the data points are "at points in the console's lifecycle", the 360 sells more 3rd party software than the Wii does still.

That chart is from Nintendo's PR department, you can bet they'd spin it like this...

You can also see it wasn't even until 2008 that 3rd party sales became respectable. I've been *****ing about 3rd party sales long before that, and this chart actually reveals I was right all throughout 2006/2007 when I talked about poor 3rd party sales...

Edit: And Nikolai is right when he says it's about what's being sold. Shovelware sells if you make enough of it and price it low enough, which is what Nintendo third parties have discovered.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5374408&highlight=Wii+revenue#post5374408

I brought up the pricing scheme to point out that while the raw #s aren't too bad, in terms of actual revenue it's quite a bit worse. That's an important distinction to make when discussing the health of the software ecosystem.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5278364&highlight=Wii+revenue#post5278364

All posted by a poster I can't bother checking who is. No direct quote of course, but the point seems to be what Spikie said. Then this baby comes, and seemingly counter Spikie's claim:

Yes, but let's focus on what is important to everyone in the end: games revenue. Wii titles tend to be overpriced at $50, FWIW, seeing as how cheap they are to make and a clear lack of effort put into them.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5084958&highlight=Wii+revenue#post5084958

But, lo and behold! This comes two posts after, as a response to Spikie's post in between:

Originally posted by DrSpike
What's important to the companies involved is the bottom line - and (unless someone can provide facts to contrary) I bet Nintendo has made more money off of the Wii than MS has off of the Xbox, or Sony from the PS3.
Very likely, but that's not the big picture.

I bet every other publisher in the world has made more money off Xbox 360 games than Wii games. And that's huge, unless you're content for yet another Nintendo-platform=Nintendo-games only platform, in which case best of luck to them, but that's not very interesting to me and a huge waste of a platform.

What's important is not one single company's initial bottom line, it's the industry's long-term bottom line. Yes, Nintendo is making a killing on Wii hardware sales -- but you only sell the hardware once. It's the software you make your money on down the road, and Nintendo's in a lot of trouble there if even THEIR best and finest software sells like a 3rd rate Xbox 360 game. Additionally, other publishers currently enamoured with the Wii due to its HW sales will not continue publishing games for the platform if no one buys them.

Even Xbox(1)'s Madden outsold Wii's Madden. And that platform is literally dead, has been for two years. How long will EA keep wasting money on Wii Madden ports? Think big picture, this is a big problem for people who actually would like games on their Wiis.

Hmmm. Funny. And then, shortly thereafter:

Simple google search.

Xbox 360 attach rate in November '05 (launch month): 4 games per console
November '06 (a year after release): 5.0 games per console
January '07: 5.3 games per console
360 attach rate today: ? (But Halo 3's 3.3 mil sold in the US is 50% of US hardware, so it's at least 0.5 higher...)

Wii attach rate in Nov '06 (launch month): 3 games per console, including Wii Sports (so, 2 games per console...)
Wii attach rate today: ?

PS3 attach rate in Nov '06 (launch month) 1.5 games per console
PS3 attach rate today: ?

I'm also not convinced Nintendo's attach rate will go too much higher. The Wii is aging a lot quicker than the 360.

Not to talk of this one right after than again:

That's BS. According to developers, your typical Wii game costs 5-8 million to make. A typical 360 game is 10-15 million.

Fun fact: Gears of War cost $10M to make. (4.81 million sold)
Red Steel cost $12.75M to make. (1.02 million sold)

Google it if you don't believe me. The hype about the Wii being cheaper to make games on is grossly overstated, particularly given how the lack of competent development tools for Wii increases costs while the 360's lowers it.

Then asleepathewheel reminds everyone we're talking revenue here, and get this response:

Sure, let's talk profits.

Gears of War cost $10M to make. (4.81 million sold)
Red Steel cost $12.75M to make. (1.02 million sold)
Note: Gears of War also sold for $60 on release and now, compared to $50 for Red Steel on release and $30 now.

Which platform generates WAY more profits for third parties? It's an easy answer. Yes, this is about profits -- but not just Nintendo profits.

How much profit did MS make in the past 3 weeks alone? Again: Nintendo is moving its profits to the short-term, MS to the long-term.

I'll let you enjoy the read now.

[Asher]

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

I never said I never mentioned revenue before...

Some of your posts show me talking about quantity of software sold, which you mistake to be revenue numbers, for christ sakes...you also don't seem to comprehend the difference between profit and revenue.

[El_Cid]

well 'we' all knew who Dr.Spike was talking about.......not surprisingly you dont. par for the course.

[Asher]

well 'we' all knew who Dr.Spike was talking about.......not surprisingly you dont. par for the course.

You are so very, very dense. I obviously understand who Dr Spike was talking about, and that's precisely why I challenged his assertion.

[El_Cid]

:shudder:

that's how it feels to be a troll? I'm sorry i tried. why do people do it! attention? some lack of self esteem? whatever......i can see it's very easy mind you

[Nikolai]

So you never said this then.

I brought up the pricing scheme to point out that while the raw #s aren't too bad, in terms of actual revenue it's quite a bit worse. That's an important distinction to make when discussing the health of the software ecosystem.

[Nikolai]

You are so very, very dense. I obviously understand who Dr Spike was talking about, and that's precisely why I challenged his assertion.

Go figure.

[Asher]

So you never said this then.

I brought up the pricing scheme to point out that while the raw #s aren't too bad, in terms of actual revenue it's quite a bit worse. That's an important distinction to make when discussing the health of the software ecosystem.

I said that in the context of third-party game sales. It was true then, it remains true today.

Regarding the Gamasutra article linked, I feel I must explain this to you like you are children. The quote DS quoted was referring to TOTAL REVENUE. That is to say, it is counting the revenue from DS GAMES + DS HANDHELDS + WII GAMES + WII CONSOLES vs PS2 GAMES + PS2 CONSOLES + PS3 GAMES + PS3 CONSOLES + PSP GAMES + PSP HANDHELDS vs 360 GAMES + 360 CONSOLES. Of course Nintendo's going to dominate the revenue in that battle, with the Wii and DS HW sales being what they are!

The vast majority of the quotes you took blatantly out of context were from discussions involving third party game sales, which is NOT something that is discussed in DS' quote.

Holy ****, people.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, you're good at that. Finding loop holes in your argumentation. A skill you've honed to greatness I might add.

[Asher]

Yeah, you're good at that. Finding loop holes in your argumentation. A skill you've honed to greatness I might add.

It's not a loophole. It's ****ing what I said. Whether you can comprehend basic conversational context seems to be a more relevant discussion topic.

[Nikolai]

You're right. You're even better at dodging discussions by ridiculing your opponent until the original case is forgotten.

[Asher]

I ridicule anyone, opponent or not, who fails repeatedly at demonstrating basic intelligence. The fact that you assume third party game revenue for a single console is somehow comparable to total brand revenue spread across all products a company makes is deeply disturbing. This is why I compare you to Ben Kenobi. While you're nice, and he is evil, you both have major failures in reading comprehension.