PS3s don’t have a high failure rate, but Sony is still losing a boatload of money on them. More even than Microsoft will lose on the Xbox 360 hardware after all of the extended warranties and RROD costs.
Nintendo’s hardware has always been great, I don’t think it’s a matter of them using a slower processor.
X-Play did a test with the following three conditions, out of the Gamecube, Xbox and PS2, only the Gamecube survived to play more games:
* Veight of the Vorld (i.e. the "Weight of the World") - A 20-pound weight is dropped on each of the consoles
* Ze Sledge of Death - Miss Vebb strikes each console with a 20-pound sledgehammer
* Ze Demon Drop - Each console is dropped off a 15-foot-high ledge
Oh, and then there was the time Electronic Gaming Monthly flushed a Gameboy Advance down a toilet and it kept on working…
Wii isn’t “dominating” the console world right now. They have sold more consoles, but one of the key figures is attach rate (how many titles each console owner buys). The 360’s attach rate dwarfs everything else.
A lot of people own a Wii, but a lot of those people are too casual to buy more than a couple of games. Nintendo’s marketing-induced failure to supply enough consoles for the first year or so probably helped them maintain cachet, but the 360, failures or not, is arguably the most successful console of this generation, profit-wise.
And that fucking Gates, dampening the righteous wrath by trying to cure malaria! Asshole!
Much worse than that. This was from a year and a half ago:
There are about 18 different things wrong with this paragraph, but you wouldn’t believe anything I wrote anyway, so what’s the point in refuting it?
Can you refute his post to help alleviate my ignorance? Please?
puppy dog eyes
Not quite. As of last holiday, Sony was losing about $50 per console. The difference at launch was much worse for them, granted, but just because the systems contain similar parts doesn’t mean the cost to manufacture them isn’t going down constantly. Sony’s official line is that they don’t plan to price-drop the PS3 this year, because it will finally be turning a profit even before a customer buys a single game.
Granted, these aren’t numbers any company wants to release, so we’re all just guessing.
This story based on manufacturing estimates puts the 360 as having made money per console since 2006. That may have fluctuated since recent price drops, but I couldn’t find any recent breakdowns of hardware cost.
And as much as I hate to invoke the wrath of Justin Bailey 
- the Wii’s audience simply doesn’t buy as many games per household as any others. The NPD charts from April show a ton of Nintendo games at the top - but these are games that are all at least a year old. The 360 consistently puts out a few games a year that sell the million+ units sold that only select Wii titles do.
Which is not to say Nintendo aren’t making out like bandits - because they are. But it’s a bit misled to assume that, with software, extra controllers and accessories, DLC and online services all costing more these days, hardware is the main determinant of any console’s financial success.
Robin, you are one of the most intelligent posters in The Game Room. Unless you dissed my beloved Contra in some way, there’s no way you could incur my wrath.
Anyway, ivn1188 was discussing overall profits and in that case, discussion of attach rates is pretty well meaningless. It really only matters as a number for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to crow about and even then, it’s fairly close to even.
The Xbox 360 does lead at 7.5, while the Wii is second with 5.3 (+1 for Wii Sports) and the PS3 is dead last with 4.6. Of course, when you multiply that by how many systems has been sold, the Xbox 360 edges the Wii with 129,600,000 to 122,324,000. And that’s with a year head start and not counting Wii Sports.
Then you factor in the fact that the vast majority of the Wii’s sales are Nintendo-produced titles and it’s plain to see that Nintendo owns everyone this generation.
Finally, ivn1188 once again brings up the conspiracy theory that Nintendo held back Wii production as a marketing gimmick. To which I ask (for the 100th), why would they do that? And secondly, even if they did hold back production, the Wii has sold more consoles in two and a half years than any console has ever.
And as for his “Wii owners are too casual” crack. That’s a load of bunk that doesn’t need debunking.
The point would be to prove you weren’t a fucking moron fanboy or some other kind of jerkass that doesn’t understand the business at all, but wants to be on the “winning” side.
But your way is easier.
However, in the interest of me not spouting off a “You’re wrong, but I won’t tell you why” post, let me talk about your points.
First, attach rate. Meaningless? Gee, I can’t see how people purchasing more games per console is meaningless. I mean, an average of an extra $120 per console, of which some portion will be paid to Microsoft? Software isn’t important? But hey, let’s just dismiss an important marketing concept. (Though it was obviously important enough for joystiq to write an article about and for people to collect stats on, which kind of negates your point that it’s just a bragging point).
Secondly, I don’t give a shit if the Wii shortage was a conspiracy or not. Maybe you are too young to remember debacles like the cabbage patch kid craze. Scarcity is one of the most attractive things you can have in a product. Think about how much you see “ACT NOW LIMITED TIME ONLY” and “CALL NOW OR YOU MIGHT LOSE OUT”. This is so obvious that it’s not even amusing that you don’t understand it. So “conspiracy” or not, it had the effect of increasing demand, and frankly, I’d rather give Nintendo the credit for being consumer savvy than just fucking up production.
Finally, your “Wii is too casual” line is a complete fabrication based only loosely on my post. A lot of Wii owners (such as my in-laws, w00t I TOLD U THEY WUZ HARDCORE) are pretty casual. More so, dare I say it, than the 360 owners or the PS3 owners. They are the people who buy American Idol or Scene-it, or have a system for the grandkids. The Wii is also the cheapest console, has the most family-oriented titles, and has the image of being more accessible. All of these things make it more attractive to the casual consumer. There isn’t some value judgement here; it’s a simple fucking fact, and one Nintendo is goddamn proud of, that the Wii has a wider base segment than the “hardcore” consoles.
I don’t know if it’s your obvious Wii fanboyism getting in the way, but let me save you some grief. Yes, Wii is, like, the best game console anywhere and it makes everyone its bitch and MS and Sony should kill themselves. You, as a Wii supporter, have a giant penis and are attractive as well. I think the Wii even cures the AIDS!
Meanwhile, in the real world, when you talk about the Wii DOMINATING the console market, you’re just an uniformed teenager that embarrasses everyone else in the room when you talk, like the guy who stands up in the board meeting at GM headquarters and says “Hey guys, hold on a second, I just had an awesome idea: more shiny!”
Wow, this thread went to kind of a crazy place.
I’m actually a 27 year old guy who runs a pretty successful all formats video game website, but thanks for playing.
And frankly, I refuted all of your points before you even made them in the post right above your most recent one.
Again, your points were about “conspiracy therories”, Wii being hardcore, and how attach rate is just meaningless. I guess we’re all supposed to just take your word for that. And even more amusing, especially for someone who claims to be some sort of journalist, you keep claiming Wii is dominating the market, but even you are admitting that the 360 “edges” the Wii in at least one important area.
I don’t know if you missed this, but my second post was actually refuting your fappery, including your repeated and now willful lack of understanding. Did you even read it?
Props on pwning the debatez with your 1337 “I don’t even need to address your points” skillz, tho. j00 f8||_
Of course I read it. It was gibberish. But if you insist, I’ll play along.
Just how about we do it without mindless name-calling and leet speak?
Attach rate is meaningless because all it tells us is how games have been sold per console. The number requires a variety of disclaimers to mean anything.
As I posted above, the Xbox 360 sells more games per console. However, as I also posted above, the Wii has outsold the Xbox 360 considerably. So, the number of games each has sold is about equal. On top of that, Nintendo-published titles sell much better than Microsoft-published titles. This can also owe to the fact Nintendo has published more games (and more in-house developed games) than Microsoft this generation.
So, your contention that Microsoft has made more pure profit than Nintendo is false as Nintendo has sold just as many games total as Microsoft, has sold more Nintendo-published games than Microsoft has sold Microsoft-published games (which garner Nintendo a greater share of the profits) and the Wii was never sold at a loss while the Xbox 360 initially was (and then Microsoft had to shell out for the RROD warranty).
One more time, please read this slowly. The Wii has sold more consoles in the two and a half years since launch than ANY CONSOLE EVER has sold in the two and a half years directly after its launch.
The reason Nintendo did not increase manufacturing capacity is because this level of demand surprised even them. And they weren’t sure when the demand would die down (hint, it still hasn’t, one more reason why they’re hugely profitable). On top of that, Nintendo is a very conservative company and did not want to be left with a huge stockpile of extra Wii systems when demand dropped down to normal levels. The fact that it hasn’t yet is, again, just as much a surprise to Nintendo as it is to the public.
All good points. However, Nintendo does not refer to themselves a “casual” game
company and any player over the age of 17 doesn’t care about hardcore and casual labels anyway. It’s a meaningless distinction that is being thrown around by people to make the Wii look inferior to the PS3 and Xbox 360 even though it is more powerful than every other console ever released except for the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Not touching this one. However, if you want to believe my penis is huge, I won’t stop you.
Now please, refute away, I’m eager to hear it.
Damnit.
fanboy crap pisses me off. I even hate the word “fanboy”. Yeah, I’m a Nintendo fan. Last generation I only owned a GameCube, and I could tottaly except that it wasn’t Nintendo’s finest hour. Even the generation before that had it’s ups and downs.
If you ask me, the Wii is over-priced. It has ridiculous accessories that one may spend about 5 minutes with, then never uses it again, (the Wii Wheel would have been ok, if it came with a game that was motion-specific and the ‘gun’ only makes controls a little harder). Lack of “hard-core” games, (see my rant above). Mostly sucky online. I could list a number of things I like about my Wii, but many, (not all), of them are personal preferences and could be too ‘subjective’ to use in an argument. If I do, (as a Nintendo fan) have one thing I can use as a “bragging right” it’s that Nintendo IS winning this generation. That’s if I wanted to be a dick about it, which I don’t. 360 is the shit, and if I had the means, of course I would get one… and a PS3.
I sincerely feel bad for posting this now. The debates/arguings were dying down, then I came along. 
No thanks. There’s about 47.3 things wrong with that sentence but basically, you pissed in the pool so now you get to swim in it. Though I should know better than to argue with a fanboy, but to be honest, I like other people to see them for what they are: sad people who are overinvested with “their” team.
You may, however, skip to the bottom of the post if you need to.
So what? First party titles are just as meaningless. Hell, third party titles are an almost free ride for the console owner, since they don’t have development costs.
Additionally, you claim the Wii has sold almost as many games as the 360. By your own numbers there’s at least a quarter-billion dollar software sales difference. Dominance, indeed.
False by your own statement in the same post, and based on oversimplified data.
False. First party titles might net a bigger SHARE but that doesn’t translate to a bigger profit. Also, these claims of not selling at a loss are basically unprovable either way. Are you suggesting we should believe Nintendo unconditionally but not Sony, or what? I’m willing to stipulate an initial loss, but there’s no way to tell the magnitude thereof.
Again, so the fuck what? That’s what happens in an expanding market. You just have a simplistic understanding, because consoles are only a small fraction of the gaming market. You ignore attach rates because you can’t stand that notnintendo might have advantages, and you are disregarding everything other than hardware and first-party title sales. Fucking a, I’m not even claiming the Wii isn’t the most profitable, I am just saying that it’s certainly not the obvious winner.
Oh, and can I note for the record that you are still failing to accurately respond to my “gibberish” (you flaming turdmonkey)? Can you point out where I even talked about making the most money or “pure profit”? No, you can’t, because I didn’t. I pointed out that it’s certainly arguable from a number of standpoints that your imbecilic claim that the Wii is !!!DOMINATING!!! is just plain wrong.
The mere fact that you need everyone to believe that the Wii wasn’t artifically shorted (and I’m not even goddamn insisting on that) or that the Wii is, like, totally hardcore (and I frankly don’t give a shit about that either, no one is making a judgment here, and the fact that you cannot understand that the Wii is aimed at a less devoted demographic is getting tedious and a bit the lady doth protest too much, wanker) leads me to believe that you are somewhat irrational on the subject, and that you have a bit more invested in this than discussing simple business.
Ok lemme do this really fast since you can’t read:
Wii has great sales figures but there is no real evidence that the Wii is dominating the market. Your argument is based upon nothing more than first-party titles and console sales, and is woefully simplistic. Furthermore any claims as to overall profitability are bullshit, because none of us have access to the real figures nor the expertise to integrate the intangibles, and I haven’t even made a claim about profitability anyway, which is only one facet of market power anyway. And you’re a fanboy which means you are probably masturbating to drawings of Princess Peach pegging Luigi while Kirby transforms into a ball gag.
So much anger. But I’m not sure why you feel the need to throw around the fanboy label. For as much as I defend the Wii around here, the Xbox 360 is my favorite next-gen system.
With a year head start, the Xbox 360 has managed to sell only 7 million more copies than the Wii. If you factor in Wii Sports, this turns into the Wii selling 13 million more games than the Xbox 360. If you factor in worldwide sales numbers (which greatly favor the Wii), the idea of who is dominating the business side of gaming becomes much clearer. Compare the Wii chart to the Xbox 360 chart.
I’m not sure what you’re getting all. It’s a matter of public record that Sony and Microsoft initially sold their systems at a loss. Subsequent cost analyses (posted by Robin earlier in the thread) show that the Xbox 360 is likely being sold at the break even point while the PS3 likely is not. For further proof, see Sony’s most recent financial statements, they had a nearly $2 billion loss last quarter.
Once again, attach rate is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Knowing how many games each console owner buys is nice, but it’s a bonus stat that comes out of the NPD’s main goal and that’s tracking how many games sell total. And in post #23, you wrote the following relating to profit and dominance (bolding mine):
Again, even if the Wii was artificially shorted, it has sold more consoles since launch than any console has sold in the two and a half years from its launch. There’s no one that can be spun as a negative against Nintendo. And yes, saying (paraphrased) “well why didn’t they sell more?” is completely missing the point.
Finally, I don’t give a shit about the casual or hardcore labels either. But to say one belongs to the Wii and one belongs to the PS3/Xbox 360 is ridiculous. First, they’re all just video games. Second, Nintendo has always said they aimed the Wii at everyone (their famed “Blue Ocean” strategy).
Wow. I read JB’s posts, and I wonder why the heck this is in the pit. Then I read ivn’s replies, and I get it.
In my experience, the person that has to resolve to name-calling usually has the weaker point. There’s no logical reason to defame your opponent unless you think your argument is not stong enough on it’s own. And if you are not arguing logically, there are likely more holes in your arguments.
Yes, I get that this is the Pit, and, therefore, you have permission to attack your opponent. But that doesn’t mean that it’s in your best interest.
And feel free to call me whatever you want. I never revisit a Pit thread I post in, anyways.
Did everyone hear that?
Justin “It’s creamy” Bailey has pointed out no less than three times that the Wii is the best 2.5 year selling console in the world, ever. He wins, I concede. There is simply no question nor defense that can overcome mindless repeats of the same post.
BigT: The reason you don’t revisit pit threads is pretty much because you’re a giant pussy. And yes, I am “resolving” to name calling. Whatever the fuck that means.