thaddius' Console Roast 2014 Edition - Round 11

[DinohScene]

People take their system far to serious.
Far.. to.. serious..

 

[JoostinOnline]

Considering the ;O; included in his post, I doubt he was actually serious.

I've actually never known what that emoticon was supposed to be. It looks like a person with patchy facial hair is in the middle of sex-face.

It was definitely very successful sales-wise, but keep in mind that it was also the 100-million-selling dust collector. A good portion of those sales are users of the Wii Fit board, yet another good portion are casual gamers who moved on to smartphones.

Another case of you deciding that everyone feels the same as you and turning into an imaginary statistic.

I can say that without a shadow of a doubt I've gone through practically everything the Wii had to offer that interested me and since then the system devolved into a Just Dance/Mario Party/Mario Kart jukebox used exclusively on parties and I'm willing to wager that many Wii's gather more dust than attention at this point in time.

I didn't enjoy any of the party games on the Wii. For me it was action games like The Conduit, Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Metroid Prime Trilogy, the Resident Evil games, and so on.

Of course I very well may be wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves - although initially very strong, software tie ratios of the Wii plummeted and as of today they're well below even the Gamecube.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39708/

Even in 2012 you can see how software attachment rates were on the incline with the PS3 and the 360 wheras the Wii's steadily dropped year after year - there's reasons behind that. That's not to say that the Wii was a one-trick-pony - it definitely showed that you can make up for hardware inadequacies with clever design, but the magic wore off eventually. To be fair though, the Wii's score is surprisingly good all things considered and there's no denying that it was a great success for the company.

That could easily mean that people didn't feel the need to keep buying new games for satisfaction. I'm not saying that it's definitely what it meant, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your assessment that it makes the console a dust gatherer.

Just for the sake of consistency, fast forward to 2014 and the tie-ratios are as follows 10.24 for the Xbox 360, 9.14 for the PlayStation 3 and for the 8.89 Wii, so overall, owners of the other two systems bought more games on average than owners of the Wii. Of course this is from VGChartz, so god knows how inaccurate these numbers might be - I'd have to look through NPD reports to find more accurate scores.

Also keep in mind that new games haven't been made for the Wii in 2 years, but new ones are being released for both the 360 and PS3.

For the record, if we aren't counting homebrew, the 360 would be my favorite console of the 7th gen. I spent sssssssssssooooooooooooooo much time playing Oblivion on it.

 

[Foxi4]

*Snip!*

It's a general truth that when owners of a given system suddenly stop buying games for it then the selection is lacking. Unless we're going to agree on the imaginary premise that people were happy with the 8 games they bought and played them happily ever after between 2009 and 2012 (the period of time when the tie-ratio for the Wii began dropping), it means that the system suffered a software draught and we know it did because we witnessed it ourselves. Judging by the fact that the Wii U is not bringing in the Wii crowds back for more, the assumption that the Wii bubble burst and that the crowd moved on appears to be entirely correct, with or without your cheeky remarks, but sure - it's an assumption, hence the "I very well may be wrong" part of my post which you seem to have glossed over. Your reply boils down to "you're making gross generalizations based on your own opinion, but my feels tell me otherwise" - that's the magic of having an opinion - it's not fact, it's what I think about a given subject, you don't have to be cheeky about it, especially considering the fact that I enjoyed my Wii for what it was worth (insert phallic joke here).

 

[orcid]

.....

The wii was not supported as long as the other two consoles which had/have an extraordinary long lifetime and there certainly was a decline in software sales and support by the developers because it became very easy using pirated software. For me this are no reasons why the wii could be a bad console.

 

[Foxi4]

The wii was not supported as long as the other two consoles which had/have an extraordinary long lifetime and there certainly was a decline in software sales and support by the developers because it became very easy using pirated software. For me this are no reasons why the wii could be a bad console.

Don't blame piracy for the decline of a system - pirates are in the gross minority and don't have a substantial impact on software sales, they're a marginal fraction of the total userbase. According to Team Twiizers, as of 2012 there were 3.1 million unique Homebrew Channel installations - that's only 3.4% of the Wii's total userbase at the time, it's an insignificant amount of people. As for software support, I specifically took a period between 2009 and 2012 since after 2012 software support practically died out, however within that period the Wii was alive and kicking. As for the Wii being a bad console, it certainly isn't and that's not what this poll is about.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

...

If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.

There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.

 

[chavosaur]

If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.

There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.

Did... Did you read the post at all?

 

[Foxi4]

If piracy were really that huge then Xbox 360 would've been a complete flop because a lot pirated and paid for Xbox LIVE Gold in order to play those games online. Heck, I read posts of people who'd get another 360 unbanned + Gold membership all over again.

There's also that I remember the internet saying PS3 was doomed due to being hacked but oh, look at it, did it flop? No it did not.

...that was the point I was driving at. Piracy is as old as the industry, it's always a factor and blaming it for the shortcomings of a system is counter-productive.

 

[matpower]

To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.

 

[Foxi4]

To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.

See, the problem with that mentality is that people often times don't realize that unless the system sells at a profit (which is rarely the case, especially early on in the life cycle) this actually generates losses because the company loses money with each system sold and does not generate a profit to bounce back with by selling games. Just because systems are selling doesn't mean that the company is making any money - it could be the opposite.

 

[TecXero]

To be honest, I always thought if a system is pirated, it will sell move because people can just buy the console and play their favorites games for free, the PS2 was really popular here in Brazil because of that.

A lot of companies sell their consoles at a loss, hoping to make it back through game sells. So, they're actively losing money on consoles sold purely for piracy.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Did... Did you read the post at all?

I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.

 

[matpower]

See, the problem with that mentality is that people often times don't realize that unless the system sells at a profit (which is rarely the case, especially early on in the life cycle) this actually generates losses because the company loses money with each system sold and does not generate a profit to bounce back with by selling games. Just because systems are selling doesn't mean that the company is making any money - it could be the opposite.

Actually, that is a pretty good point I have ignored, but the amount of money loss depends on the amount of people pirating stuff, and that made me wonder: "How much is the paidiracy ratio in the videogame market for most popular consoles?"

I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.

I swear tl;dr is ruining the internet!

 

[Foxi4]

I got derailed after reading a bit of it. Was tl;dr.

C'mon, man - it was 4 lines of text, I dread to think what's your take on FAST6191's posts.

Actually, that is a pretty good point I have ignored, but the amount of money loss depends on the amount of people pirating stuff, and that made me wonder: "How much is the paidiracy ratio in the videogame market for most popular consoles?"

That is quite interesting - most piracy-related statistics focus on the amount of downloaded software, I don't remember reading any articles on how many games the average pirate buys or how many console owners don't buy any games at all. I'm sure there's a gradation here - some pirates exclusively download, some buy the games they were impressed with, some buy the ones that have to be original copies to be played online, so who knows? It's an interesting subject for a study.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Just for the sake of consistency, fast forward to 2014 and the tie-ratios are as follows 10.24 for the Xbox 360, 9.14 for the PlayStation 3 and for the 8.89 Wii, so overall, owners of the other two systems bought more games on average than owners of the Wii. Of course this is from VGChartz, so god knows how inaccurate these numbers might be - I'd have to look through NPD reports to find more accurate scores.

Attach rates are an important metric to measure the success of a given console, but it requires the numbers to be placed in a proper perspective.

The numbers look a bit different when you consider the Wii has at least 20 million more systems sold than the PS3 or 360, it means though the attach rate was lower Nintendo still managed to shift a ton more software than either Sony or Microsoft and in effect made even more money from software licensing. (Plus that attach rate isn't that far apart... less than 2 between the top and the bottom with the PS3's being .25 more than the Wii... almost a difference not worth mentioning.)

Just out of curiosity why in your opinion was the PS3's attach rate nearly identical?

My guess is that while the Wii did have a lack of great games in the last couple of years, the PS3 lacked any great games for it's launch. But it sold pretty poorly at the start so that shouldn't have had much effect on the attach rate. I also suspect a lot of people purchased PS3's as cheap BD players (I actually know some one who has a PS3 and no games they actually just watch movies on it.)

 

[Nathan Drake]

You know, I made a huge post regarding the inaccuracies of tie-rates, and how discussing the significance of them without actually determining the statistical significance of them is silly and pointless, but suffice it to say that arguing over tie-rates is so absolutely worthless. They don't represent true software adoption rates for a multitude of reasons that I'm sure you could all figure out with a bit of thinking and specifically looking at the Wii's top "selling" title.

 

[Foxi4]

You know, I made a huge post regarding the inaccuracies of tie-rates, and how discussing the significance of them without actually determining the statistical significance of them is silly and pointless, but suffice it to say that arguing over tie-rates is so absolutely worthless. They don't represent true software adoption rates for a multitude of reasons that I'm sure you could all figure out with a bit of thinking and specifically looking at the Wii's top "selling" title.

Of course, the Wii's top seller is Wii Sports because it was bundled with consoles with Wii Play trailing behind because it was bundled with WiiMotes - they're top sellers because you had them shoved down your throat, not because they're good games, I get your point.

Attach rates are an important metric to measure the success of a given console, but it requires the numbers to be placed in a proper perspective.

The numbers look a bit different when you consider the Wii has at least 20 million more systems sold than the PS3 or 360, it means though the attach rate was lower Nintendo still managed to shift a ton more software than either Sony or Microsoft and in effect made even more money from software licensing. (Plus that attach rate isn't that far apart... less than 2 between the top and the bottom with the PS3's being .25 more than the Wii... almost a difference not worth mentioning.)

Just out of curiosity why in your opinion was the PS3's attach rate nearly identical?

My guess is that while the Wii did have a lack of great games in the last couple of years, the PS3 lacked any great games for it's launch. But it sold pretty poorly at the start so that shouldn't have had much effect on the attach rate. I also suspect a lot of people purchased PS3's as cheap BD players (I actually know some one who has a PS3 and no games they actually just watch movies on it.)

You are overlooking a very important factor - PS3 software (between $40 and $60) is more expensive than Wii software ($30 - $40), which works in favour of the PS3, plus you have to look at the most recent tie-ratio. The reason why Nintendo made filthy amounts of money from software sales isn't because software sold terribly well on the system - the reason is that what sold the most were first party titles which pump substantially more money into the bank than third party titles that only provide licensing profits.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Of course, the Wii's top seller is Wii Sports because it was bundled with consoles with Wii Play trailing behind because it was bundled with WiiMotes - they're top sellers because you had them shoved down your throat, not because they're good games, I get your point.
You are overlooking a very important factor - PS3 software (between $40 and $60) is more expensive than Wii software ($30 - $40), which works in favour of the PS3, plus you have to look at the most recent tie-ratio. The reason why Nintendo made filthy amounts of money from software sales isn't because software sold terribly well on the system - the reason is that what sold the most were first party titles which pump substantially more money into the bank than third party titles that only provide licensing profits.

Well on the Wii Sports thing, it wasn't packed in Japan and it still managed to hit the top of the charts for quite some time. It's a pretty fun game on it's own merits and I for one am glad to have it come with my systems. (So much fun in fact it's one of the games I keep installed on my Wii's external hard drive.)

Also on another note do you think BD disks might be a tad more expensive to press than DVD's? Or that production of HD content might be a bit higher too?

PS3 games costed more because simply they costed more, not because Sony made more money selling them. Consumers purchased what they wanted and didn't pay a damned bit of attention to price. The fact that at one point the Wii was selling for 249.99 while the 360 Arcade was selling for 199.99 and the Wii was still outselling it week on week for months.... (To this day I cannot figure out why there was not a huge huge huge jump in 360 sales at that price point.)

 

[Foxi4]

Well on the Wii Sports thing, it wasn't packed in Japan and it still managed to hit the top of the charts for quite some time. It's a pretty fun game on it's own merits and I for one am glad to have it come with my systems. (So much fun in fact it's one of the games I keep installed on my Wii's external hard drive.)

Also on another note do you think BD disks might be a tad more expensive to press than DVD's? Or that production of HD content might be a bit higher too?

PS3 games costed more because simply they costed more, not because Sony made more money selling them. Consumers purchased what they wanted and didn't pay a damned bit of attention to price. The fact that at one point the Wii was selling for 249.99 while the 360 Arcade was selling for 199.99 and the Wii was still outselling it week on week for months.... (To this day I cannot figure out why there was not a huge huge huge jump in 360 sales at that price point.)

Pressing is not substantially more expensive - if anything, BD licenses are higher. As for development costs, it really depends on the title and the size of the studio that made it, not necessarily the platform. Take motion capture or 3D scanning for example - it's going to be the same regardless of the platform, it's the end models that will be more or less simplified in the end. That's not to say that making an HD game is as easy as making a non-HD game, the financial input is definitely higher with HD ones. As far as the 360 Arcade is concerned, I think that many users didn't want to go for the half-arsed version of the system and prefered to save up for the complete package.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Pressing is not substantially more expensive - if anything, BD licenses are higher. As for development costs, it really depends on the title and the size of the studio that made it, not necessarily the platform. Take motion capture or 3D scanning for example - it's going to be the same regardless of the platform, it's the end models that will be more or less simplified in the end. That's not to say that making an HD game is as easy as making a non-HD game, the financial input is definitely higher with HD ones. As far as the 360 Arcade is concerned, I think that many users didn't want to go for the half-arsed version of the system and prefered to save up for the complete package.

Well at today's prices DVD and BD pressing are pretty close in terms of cost. But at the launch of the PS3 BD prices where pretty much at OMFG are you kidding me. The manufacturing had to be tooled up as BD disks cannot be pressed on the same equipment as DVD's. That was one of the selling points of HD DVD, it could use the same equipment to press as DVD's and only required minimal upgrades.

Another point in this whole story is that at the launch of this gen, most people did not own HD TV's. I don't remember the exact percentage off hand but I want to say it was under 30%.

Sounds retarded at this point in time but for sure it made an impact on sales.