Why won't Sony or Microsoft admit Nintendo is a competitor?
(Credit: Nintendo)Whenever I read a Sony or Microsoft press release or meet with company representatives, they're quick to point out that Nintendo's Wii console isn't a competitor. Why? They claim it's because the Wii does gaming differently and is more of a "casual" platform than a "true" gaming console.
It didn't get any better Monday when Microsoft sent a press release detailing the Xbox 360's performance on Black Friday. According to the company, its console sales "were on pace to beat previous years, outselling the PlayStation 3 by a three-to-one ratio and estimating a 25 percent increase from Xbox 360 Black Friday sales figures from 2007."
Microsoft even worked Europe into its gloat session by detailing how well the Xbox 360 performs across the continent: "Xbox 360 sales have also surged worldwide since the September price drop, outselling the PlayStation 3 week over week across Europe."
Did you happen to see anything missing in those two statements? Was it a mention of Sony? Nope. Was it a mention of the Playstation 3? Not a chance. Was it the Wii and Nintendo? Show her what she's won: a Wii!
It shouldn't come as a surprise. Earlier this year, Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg, director of product management for the Xbox 360, said the Wii isn't a competitor at all.
"I think for us, we don't really see the Wii as a direct competitor, we actually very much complement the Wii experience," he gushed. "It's obviously clear that we're going head-to-head with the PS3 in this generation."
Sony isn't innocent either, of course. Just a few weeks later, the company's CEO, Howard Stringer, told Bloomberg that he's played the Wii and he's not impressed.
"I've played a Nintendo Wii," he said. "I don't see it as a competitor. It's more of an expensive niche game device."
And yet, as Microsoft and Sony continue to focus on each other, it's the Wii that led the way on Black Friday and became the most desired product across retail locations worldwide. And we can't forget that that "niche gaming device" that isn't a "direct competitor" has almost outsold both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 combined.
Call me crazy, but when I go to Target or Gamestop and I see the Wii sitting next to the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 and I consider the fact that they all play games from the same developers (many of which are the same), have the same general price level, and provide the same basic experience, I'm inclined to believe they're competitors.
There's no debating the fact that the Wii provides a different way to play games, but it's equally undebatable that it's a competitor to the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360. Are we supposed to believe that Microsoft's decision to drop the price of the Xbox 360 Arcade to $199.99 wasn't to compete on price with the Wii? Are we supposed to believe that Sony's DualShock 3 controller's Sixaxis functionality isn't the result of the Wiimote?
Give me a break.
The Wii is a direct competitor to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. What does it hurt to say that if you're Sony or Microsoft? I just don't get it.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
:) Everyone loves a grammar Nazi.
Also, people have been playing games on their tvs for several decades, so why do people think the Wii or PS3 or XBox360 are so great?
And people have followed storylines since speech was invented, so why is a game with a good storyline impressive?
And the imagination is used by even primates. It doesn't even require human intelligence. So when these games help you imaging you are in some other world, what's the big deal?
Oh, and there is a chance that billions and billions of parallel universes exist like ours, so what makes anything of our unique?
Don't forget, it's possible that the universe existed before and is just in an eternal expand/contract loop. So any technology that will be invented in our future has already been invented before. So why even read the "news" paper? It's all happened before.
Changing expectations to increase success.
We know this is a lie though since both M$ and Sony are both imitating a lot of Nintendo's features and bringing them to their current platforms. i.e. Miis.
X Player has the most career doubles on the 2nd Tuesday of September when its a full moon and the opposing teams city starts with a C.
MS and Sony and way behind in console sales. That's it. Who knows if Nintendo will be able to maintain the lead? I just hope one or both MS and Sony catch up and force the Big N to bring some real games to the table. I feel like I haven't played anything solid on the system for 6 months.
As things become more mainstream and the market asks for certain things, you've got no choice but to catch on. Nintendo Wii revolutionized motion control. PS3 wanted to delve into such a market because it shows a promising future.
Xbox revolutionized online play. Xbox LIVE (itself, not the people who use it) is nearly flawless. It changed the way people play games. It's shifted most focus from a good story to a killer online experience. Think about it. I've gotten a whole year out of Halo 3 (and i'm still going strong) even though the campaign took 4 hours to beat. It's all about what developers want to delve into, and what kind of market they try to engross.
Playstation played it's own card, and got tons of 3rd party support early on. Nintendo make completely kick-ass single player games, but the third parties weren't there. Sony couldn't make a decent story to save their life (although their 2nd party devs could get a few intriguing things going), but all the third party devs favored a lower cost and a more mainstream console.
This is shifting over to the Wii because everyone is buying a Wii, and the devs want to delve into this pot of gold called "Casual Gaming".
All in all, "copying" in the gaming industry is simply creating a standard.
Youre just making stuff up.
What I meant by "no competition" is that with two screen displays (with one of them being a touch screen (Apple copied the touch screen idea from Nintendo, obviously)), it's like having a GPS for your games, where you see live maps as you play your adventure games.
I suggest giving the Nintendo DS a try sometime, it's quite entertaining and when you fold the screen closed, most games are programmed to pause into sleep mode.
While I like my iPod Touch, it's no match for the Nintendo DS.
Anything less than two screens is only half the fun.
Oh, and here's the proof:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/154695/tech_sells_on_black_friday.html
That's just one article, among many.
It's easy to find out on yourself.. Kind of rude to call him an amateur blogger
I find the Xbox Avatars much more appealing. Mii's were just a face on a playmobile body. I actually go to my avatar every once in a while to change its clothes and facial expression. It's a far better implementation, and that success has nothing to do with Nintendo. If Nintendo was smarter about their version, there wouldn't be so much room to improve so easily. It's what Microsoft does, and they do it pretty well.
If you want to make a point, make it, but don't dance around the issue, drumming up the xbox fanboys with "I'm not saying anything, but isn't it funny..."
The 80's saw Atari and Nintendo, among others. Off all of those, who's still around? Nintendo.
The 90's saw Sega and Nintendo, then Sony. Sega systems are gone. Nintendo remains.
The 2000's saw NIntendo's Gamecube get beat down by PS2 and XBOX. BUt now the tables are turned.
Nintendo innovated, like it always does, and is the current winner.
Nintendo has always been a major game playing company. Always will be.
Sony and MS have been in business for many things, then added gaming to their plate, following the leader of Nintendo.
I'm not saying Nintendo is the best, but they are indeed a competitor! And that's a no-brainer.
While it is true the gaming styles differ between the three systems, it is very true that the Wii hosts many of the same games as the other two consoles. The main difference between the consoles are the processing/video capabilities used in each one. The PS3 is more or less just a computer; you can run Linux operating systems on it. The Xbox is a game machine, first and foremost. These companies are trying to tie everything in together. And while some consumers enjoy having everything-in-one, some consumers don't have need of high-def. graphics and overly sophisticated processing power; for them it is the games themselves. Nintendo understands games; these is evidenced by the fact that Nintendo's software consistently outsells third party software, with only a few exceptions (such as Halo).
That makes no sense at all. The Wii plays video games and if you have a Wii, you are obviously into video games. Maybe not the kind that you're into (probably hard core gaming), but they're video games none the less.
*** would I want an imitation of a PC (360) or an overpriced movie player when I can crank my system up to do that and more. Those 2 consoles are for people to stupid to PC.
And yes, the one console I do have to complement my gaming PC is a wii.
Going back to the topic at hand, I disagree with Don's opinion purely because he's using the word "competitor" very loosely. Thinking in terms of Microsoft and Sony, both of them are in direct competition with each other since they are both going after the hardcore gaming market where as everyone can agree that the Wii is geared towards the casual gaming market. Why don't we say smartphones are competing with regular cellphones? Why don't we say computer workstations are competing with home computers? Hell, let's think in movie terms and say The Dark Knight is competing with The Notebook. Imagine yourself trying to sell a product, wouldn't you think about who your audience would be? If others are trying to capture that same audience then those are your real competitors.
If the product is slicing into your market--and if I remember correctly, PS3 sales launched far below expectations, and have been climbing slowly do to price concessions that aren't all that great for Sony's bottom line--it's a competitor.
I assure you, MS and Sony don't call board meetings to discuss ways of making 'serious gamers' happy while ignoring the rest. They want to open up their markets just like everyone else. And besides all of that, however serious you are or you aren't, owning a second console means you are likely (I'm simply willing to bet there are stats to back this up) going to buy less games from the other console than you normally would have. For instance, why buy a racing game on PS3 when the experience on Wii is so much cooler? (Opinion? Sure. Greatly shared? Uhuh.) So Sony just lost the sale of a racing game because my xmas dollars just went to a Nintendo licensed product.
Hey, competition.
In business, you have a "market" and you have a "niche." Let me give you an example. "Apparel" is a market. "Suits" and "tuxedos" are a niche. "Dresses" are a niche.
Let's tie this example in. "Gamers" are the market. "Casual gamers" are a niche. "Hardcore gamers" are a niche.
"I assure you, MS and Sony don't call board meetings to discuss ways of making 'serious gamers' happy while ignoring the rest."
Have you ever been to a board meeting? The board of directors are not concerned with the day-to-day operations of a company. A board is established for corporate governance and oversight for public companies. In private companies, they may take a more active role and provide support and guidance to the CEO. Generally, a board member does not even need to know much about the market to serve on the board. In some cases, this is done to increase investments in the company. For example, you'll see names like Hillary Clinton on board seats or Colin Powell on the AOL board of directors. They are simply figureheads for the company.
The corporate officers (CEO, COO, CFO, and so on) are responsible for the strategy and execution of the business. They are in charge of the day-to-day operations.
About 99% of the comments posted here are irrelevant due to misinformation.
From a business standpoint, Nintendo performed very well by exploring "blue oceans" while Microsoft and Sony battled it out for "red oceans." Thus, Nintendo came out with a much smoother ride on fewer marketing dollars. Read "Blue Ocean Strategy" for a better idea.
If any of the commentators here were to serve on the executive team for any of these companies, they'd be fired in an instant for naivete. Don't comment on business if you know nothing about it.
http://www.mmorpg-maker.com
So, what we are effectively talking about market segmentation, and in many respects I can agree with your statement that "serious" gamers will probably buy a 360 and PS3 in addition to a Wii, if the buy one at all. Whether this is important very much depends on who you talk to. What is clear, however, is that both Sony and Microsoft are so far sacrificing a very substantial market. If they do not intend to compete for the "casual gamer" then they can be forgiven for not considering the Wii as a competitor.
Personally, I decided to buy a single console and selected the Wii because it was something I could play with my wife whereas the likes of the PS3 and 360 is not something that would appeal to her. Additionally, the other consoles were ignored due to poor hardware with the 360 and too expensive with the PS3. Given that a decision was made between the 3 systems, and because I used to be a Sony customer, I tend to think that that the Wii is a competitor to the 360 and PS3 since I probably would have bought one of the others had the Wii not existed.
I have two Xboxes and Had 4 at one point. I didn't buy a 360 because they are to unreliable and I didn't buy a PS3 because it is priced to high.
Don't tell me we are not gamers. I am 100% sure I'm not the only one either.
The fact is Nintendo makes games for younger people and family games. Families and younger people are gamers also.
You don't have to be between 15 and 30 to be a gamer so go play with yourself and your PS3/360 if it still works.
Medal of Honor
Call of Duty
Resident Evil
Star Wars Force Unleashed
Manhunt 2
Hundreds of Sports games.
I will agree that the Wii does seem to lack adventure/RPG element games. However, when you look at the flip side of this, the Wii has the "Wii Shop" channel, which lets people purchase additional games from previous systems, as well as the "Homebrew" channel. These channels both have additional games you won't find elsewhere, as well as the Nintendo Software selection of games.
I am a 26 year old gamer, and I remember fondly the Atari Video Console System, 7600, NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, and Playstation games of yesterday. And I look forward to the next video console war. Then I will be able to find PS3's, Xbox 360's and Wii's for $30 or $40 at yard sales and thrift stores.
I will admit that the Xbox 360 seems to have a far better selection of games.
LOL--a tad opinionated today, are we. Let me see, I've owned in my lifetime (in order): Pong, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Gameboy Playstation, PS2 (2 of them becuase the first one broke after I started Kingdom Hearts 2), GBA, Gamecube, and now Wii. And I've played plenty of games (i.e. WOW) on my PC over the years.
I tend to view myself as a gamer, but, oh, I don't own a PS3 or X360. Guess I'm just not serious enough.
Power Gamers would have more than 1 console.
Casual Gamers buy the Wii in droves. When they buy a Wii they are not buying a 360 or PS3. For what it's worth some of this catagory buy the PS2 as well.
If Casual Gamers (and related folks like Grandparents buying for the wee ones) didn't have a Wii to buy they would buy one of the Big 2. Since they do have a Wii, the other two are losing sales to the compettion. That's the Wii.
Casual Gamers drive the mass market. Power Gamers drive the bleeding edge.
For example you said the WII is sucessful because it tapped into a new group of consumers who aren't into video games.
I had a super fast home PC, very powerful nvidia graphics card, lots of ram, quad core etc...If I wanted a game, it would surely play better on my PC than say an XBOX or PS3 wanna bee PC, no?
My point is, i am not as you say a gamer, so i never buy PC games but I am considering a WII home gaing system for my livingroom.
Not because it is super powerful or HD graphics, but because as you stated, a fun toy.
Doesn't that in itself classify it as a gaming box? the fact people ARE buying it just to play games when they aren't real gamers?
And I don't plan on buying an XBOX and PS3 along side it, trust me, upgrading my PC is expensive enough.
But having something fun like the WII for friends and family to enjoy once in a while might be more my speed.
And this untapped demographic is boosting the WII sales even if it isn't a real gaming unit, as some say.
Just MHO, and my 2 cents.
I gauge the console wars by the most popular list on Gamefly... and it is always flush with 360 games and the occasional dissenter.
Walk into Toys R Us one day and hang out in the gaming section. When mom buys the Wii for her kid because she knows the name, because it's cheap, or because the games seem more family friendly, and she buys this instead of buying a PS3 or 360, that makes it competition.
The irrelevance of this comment makes my brain hurt, when you shop for cell phones the iPhone is on the same shelf as the Samsung flip phones - this doesn't necessarily mean they compete with each other - you are comparing apples to oranges. The Wii is definitely a "niche" toy at most, the graphics, gameplay and general use of the device compares more to that of Virtual Reality enhanced low grade computer system than any other video game console on the market. Microsoft will not recognize this item as a competitor because it is a completely different device, it's graphics card and speed is less than that of the original XBOX console - if you want a closer comparison try that of a Golden Tee Golf or Buck Hunter (other interactive gaming machines). Do some research next time before you try to make yourself look smart.
As far as Wii being a niche device that will go away? That is up to MS and Sony. Bottom line: If Sony and MS had decided to created a line of interactive games in the same vein as Nintendo, the Wii would be history. But they decided to ignore that market segment and are starting to realize that the casual gaming market is clearly very profitable.
I'm an iPhone loving guy. Mine's changed my life and I'll never go back to a regular cell. But by convincing me to choose a smartphone--and an iPhone at that--over the flipphone I would have normally bought, the iPhone becomes a competitor.
I cant speak for penandpaper52, but yeah, I'd agree that the iPhone HAS in fact changed my life. I know it has a lot of features, blah, blah, blah.
- Getting email within the 5 minutes that its sent (yes, my nokia phone did this too, but I never used it because it was terrible and slow)
- Having an excellent web browser on the go ( I know blackberries did this a loooong time ago, but it was slow and the browsers were terrible. I loved my blackberry for email and text, almost never used the browser, which was awkward to use).
- Web Apps: Yelp, Pandora, Google Maps, "Now Playing" (a movie summary, show time, location app), and Shazam (tells you what song your listening to in public by "listening to the song" for you). I use these applications on a daily basis.
I know there are tons of features on the iPhone, but these are the only ones I use on a daily basis. So yes, the iPhone changed my life (but it isn't my life). Its one of many tools I use to make better use of my time and to stay connected with family, friends, and co-workers.
All those features and more are found on my $99 3 year old phone.
I still see PS2 show up in the rankings. Their games still sell. They are far from great competition, but it's another choice for gamers and hence it's competition. Good point.
What people also fail to realize is that the Wii costs almost half what the other systems do. OF COURSE you are going to sell more of something if the price is lower, it's basic economics. BY DOLLAR sales both the other systems have kept pace with the Wii. Sure numbers of units sold is important for software sales but, is the Wii really selling that much software? Numbers says no, which is unsurprising given the lack of quality titiles.
Every family in our play-date group has a Wii and no other console....hmmmm. Coincidence? think about it. Regardless of which console is better, Wii has family appeal and guess who earns the money in most households.....
So in this model the 2 groups are people that buy the Wii because they wanted it in addition to the other console they bought, or bought it for the Wii alone and were never in the market for a PS3 or 360. There isn't really a 3rd group that buys a Wii instead of the PS3 or 360.
On a final point, the games library for the Wii doesn't even come close to competing with the libraries for the other two consoles. Sure the Wii has titles, but the sales of those titles is limited to a few big headlines, while the PS3 and 360 have many more blockbuster titles: Gears of War 2, Deadspace, Bioshock, Force Unleashed, Assassins Creed, Mirrors Edge, etc. The list gets quite long, of games that will never be on the Wii. (Anyone who mentions the Wii versions of a select few of these games gets a demerit for mentioning them, they don't even reasonably count, and if you think I'm wrong, you haven't played them side by side.)
And I am one of those who believe that they are NOT direct competitors. Yes, they are in the general sphere of gaming, but on completely different levels. As someone else previously mentioned, a Wii is more akin to a board game; namely it is a social gaming platform; A great party game.
You only need to look at the marketing campaigns, and the games featured in those commercials. The Wii shows Grandma playing with the Wii Fit, along with mom and dad playing Wii Sports with the kids. The microsoft and sony commercials don't really focus on the people, but the games themselves. Think gears of war, halo, resistance, etc. The fact is anyone can have and enjoy a Wii; then a serious gamer will have a second console, either the 360 or the PS3. There probably are not stats for this, but I am willing to bet that there are far more people with a Wii and 360/PS3, rather than people with a 360 and PS3. They would be redundant machines, with the more or less the same titles.
The Wii is as much a competitor to the PS360s as:
- Mc Donalds is to Steakhouses
- $500 Dell Notebooks are to $2,000 MacBook Pros
- Free cellphones are to the iPhone
- Bus tickets are to Plane tickets
- Wii Fit is to Equinox memberships
- Pokemon Ruby is to Monster Hunter
- The Conduit is to Halo (I like this one)
In this context, the competition is defined by the target demographic. There is very little overlap between those markets, and if Nintendo really thinks it stole any significant group of customers from the other side (i.e. they didn't buy a PS3 or 360 as a result of their Wii purchase), they're completely out of touch.
All the Wii did was introduce gaming to a non-gaming public. And sooner or later they will all convert to an HD-ready system, be it a PS3, a 360... or even a Wii HD. So, in fact, the Wii only helps the PS360s in the long term.
It's hardly a competitor.
Again, McDonalds vs Steakhouse.
Also, there are plenty of gamers who only have a Wii. Saying that the Wii is not a competitor because people will buy and 360 or PS3 too is pathetic. People will rarely go out and buy all three at the same time. This means they had to choose which they would buy first. This implies competition.
Your other points:
- Mc Donalds is to Steakhouses
Honestly, McDonalds is a competitor just because it exists. When you either cannot afford, or do not have time for a steak dinner and you choose something else...
- $500 Dell Notebooks are to $2,000 MacBook Pros
Again, there are many out their that would prefer a less expensive laptop that does what they want it to.
- Free cellphones are to the iPhone
To each his own... I decided not to buy an iPhone because I don't need one. Thus I spent 49 dollars on a phone and didn't give my money to Apple.
- Bus tickets are to Plane tickets
Jump on a Greyhound and see the wonderful country. Fly a plane see the clouds.
- Wii Fit is to Equinox memberships
I went from 240 to 217 using only the wii fit. Pretty nice for a student who cannot spend the time at a gym.
- Pokemon Ruby is to Monster Hunter
You make my head hurt.
- The Conduit is to Halo (I like this one)
I agree with you on this one.
- Mc Donalds is to Steakhouses
- $500 Dell Notebooks are to $2,000 MacBook Pros
- Free cellphones are to the iPhone
- Bus tickets are to Plane tickets
- Wii Fit is to Equinox memberships
- Pokemon Ruby is to Monster Hunter
- The Conduit is to Halo (I like this one)"
Hypothetically speaking, if the cost of travel had gone up over the last few years and people started to choose buses over planes for short distance travel, then I'd have to say yes. That's competition.
Just because Wii isn't winning over the entire core gaming market doesn't mean anything. MS and PS3 want more than that. They need more than that.
I think your response only proves my point. You "refuted" each of my examples by explaining how each of those instances can be considered genuine competition. But that was exactly what I was getting at; they CAN be competitors, but only when you expand the definition of what it means to be a competitor.
Mc Donalds *IS* a competitor of a Steakhouse, simply because they both compete for people's money. But does that mean the PS3 is a competitor of a Steakhouse too? Your answer, if you wanted to be consistent, would be "yes". Mine is a firm "no".
Wii Fit vs. Equinox: I own Wii Fit myself, but I would never spend money on an Equinox membership (@ $100/month). The Wii Fit was never going after those people who already spend 2hrs/day running the treadmills, it's targeted at people who DON'T work out normally. Yes, there ARE people who buy Wii Fit and think that they saved money by getting that game instead of buying a real health club membership. By your logic, these two options are competing against each other. I disagree.
---
I guess this all comes down to how you define "competition".
Your definition is much broader than I would be willing to explore.
You said that it was "pathetic" to say that people getting a PS3 as well is no proof that these two products are competing. I think you are missing the point.
My point is that the Wii is not going to stop people who want a 360 or PS3 from getting one eventually. You see, someone who gets a 360 may never buy a PS3. And vice versa. Therefore, they are in direct competition with another. But if somebody who wanted a PS3 or 360 is never going to buy a Wii and tell himself, "you know what? I always wanted a PS3, but now that I have a Wii, I don't think I'll ever buy a Wii". In fact, it's the opposite. Getting a Wii tends to make people realize what they are actually missing, and drives them toward an upgrade.
I wrote: But if somebody who wanted a PS3 or 360 is never going to buy a Wii and tell himself, "you know what? I always wanted a PS3, but now that I have a Wii, I don't think I'll ever buy a Wii".
What I meant to write was: But somebody who wanted a PS3 or 360 is never going to buy a Wii then say to himself, "You know what? I had always wanted a PS3/360, but now that I have a Wii, I don't think I'll ever need a PS3/360."
God how embarrassing... =P
Microsoft and Sony don't believe its a direct competitor because they don't think that they lose a sale of a 360 or PS3 when someone goes out and buys a Wii. Much like Mercedes didn't lose a sale when I bought my Hyundai Accent. The guy who made the distinction between the Overall Market and a Niche within the Overall Market is quite correct.
I think you analogy still hold, but not quite the way you intended, however.
NOT because the Wii can't play them. It's not as graphic but it is better the the first Xbox and it has GTA.
Think before you post next time.
The only saving grace for the 360 and PS3 is that their users buy more games. Wii users are more casual (which I said in another post) and buy less games. But since Nintendo makes money on the console itself, I'm not sure that this is a critical for Nintendo as Sony and MicroSoft.
-
by tsi26
December 2, 2008 11:35 AM PST
- Listen hear folks...it's quite simple why Sony and MS don't see Nintendo as a competitor. Are you ready... everyone listening...here it goes... Nintendo doesn't sell any 3rd party titles. It's that simple. When they can only sell games that they've created it doesn't bode well for the longevity of the console. Yes... Nintendo is a niche product or a fad however you want to see it. This will not change until if/when they get strong 3rd party support. Check for yourself...look at the list of top selling games for the Wii. How many weren't made by Nintendo? Not many...anyways. Now here is the problem Nintendo will face with 3rd party support. No game company wants to put the effort into creating a game that utilizes the Wii's unique controller to it's fullest when the majority of the Wii gamers aren't considered their target market. How many grandma's are going to pick up a shooting FPS game? Not many...sorry but MS and Sony are right! The Wii simply doesn't do what is traditionally considered a gaming console. Nintendo doesn't want to do that either. That isn't Nintendo's strength.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by pjhenry1216
December 2, 2008 1:08 PM PST
- Ummm... Nintendo *does* sell third party titles.
-
-
-
by tsi26
December 2, 2008 2:00 PM PST
- Yes I know they do sell some but not as many as the other consoles. Hense the until Nintendo gets strong 3rd party support.
-
-
-
by monoclemonkey
December 3, 2008 6:01 AM PST
- @tsi26...you said none in the first sentence of your original comment. Now you say some. Instead of "Yes, I know...hence", you should have replied to pjhenry1216 "you are right. my mistake." It is okay to be wrong. Just stand up and say "yep, I was mistaken/wrong/incorrect/misinformed" even if it is on the internet.
-
-
-
by DrtyDogg
December 3, 2008 6:44 PM PST
- They do offer 3rd party titles, most of them are crap though, and even the decent ones don't sell well.
-
-
-
by megustansalchichas
December 4, 2008 5:32 PM PST
- 'what is traditionally considered a gaming console' -What? nintendo DEFINED the gaming console. what tradition are you talking about? ever heard of mario brothers? ever heard of zelda? these are TOYS you're talking about, it's like saying monopoly doesn't consider scrabble a competitor because scrabble doesn't involve money. you're all retarded, last I saw, nintendo stock was worth TWICE microsoft stock and nintendo doesn't even make nintendo office 2007. it's more like microsoft isn't a traditional gaming company, how many grandmas are going to pick up a copy of SQL Server 2008?
-
-
-
by Renegade Knight
December 5, 2008 11:43 AM PST
- Your whole argument is that Nintendo makes good games for their own Console and so that's why they aren't a compeittor?
-
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (236 Comments)Oh and to the commenter that said MS copied the Mii with the Avatars...when hasn't MS taken other's best ideas and copied them!
Granted, I still don't see the Wii as a competitor because its completely different experience, but still, I just had to point out there are third party Wii games.
>"The Wii simply doesn't do what is traditionally considered a gaming console."
Has Nintendo redefined the parameters of a gaming console?
The iPhone is not a traditional smart phone, is it not still a smart phone?
The experience does not define a game console, the components do. A console is a hardware device that emits a video signal from a proprietary disk/cartridge to a video display and uses controllers to interact with the software ...roughly. http://tr.im/1s4s The only "experience" required to be a gaming console (IMO) is the ability to interface with a controller.
If someone finds a definition of "game console" that the Wii does not fall under, please let us know. Until then, remember when GM and Ford did not consider Toyota or Datsun/Nissan to be competition? Microsoft did not consider Google competition ...does anyone else see a pattern? Seems like MS and Sony are writing their own version of this self-damning prophecy.
My 2 cents: They belong on the same shelves but they don't really directly compete. I bought my wii right when it came out. I love it. I don't play it nearly as much as I used to now that I have a 360. I own two 3rd party titles for the wii, Madden and Tiger Woods. Bought them right after I got the wii. Since then I've only bought Nintendo titles: Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers etc.
What it boils down to is that I play my wii for different reasons than I play my 360. Got a couple of friends over? Mario Kart or Bowling, just want to waste a little time? Smash Brothers. I play my 360 when I want to spend a couple of hours immersed in a game.
If anything you just put another check on the "ways the Wii is kicking butt" checklist.
3rd party companies need to figure out how to take advantage of the Wii's interface to create and sell games. That is if they like selling to the most folks they can (which really is the point of most game companeis who like making games for people to enjoy).