January Console Sales Numbers (it begins?)

[Cringer]

Very good time, I am in the same boat.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I remember playing mortal combat, that looks like the same thing but with Mario. I can see why I haven't become a Wiitard yet.

Somebody grab me a rag. I just spit my Diet Dew all over my desk

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I have to imagine that if EA made a console and made the games exclusive it would put the exclusive licenses in danger, right? Maybe not the current one but the chance to renew - I'm pretty sure I remember reading that at least the NFL license was very focused on the games staying multi-platform.

I can't imagine that EA getting into the console hardware business would make any kind of financial sense. EA has gotten where they are in large part because they are platform neutral and are able to minimize development costs by spreading game releases out on all major platforms.

If they were to build their own console, you'd expect they'd need to make many/all of their games platform exclusive in order to provide a reason for people to buy their hardware instead of a Sony, MS or Nintendo. But doing so would substantially lessen their sales base, and as noted it would void their exclusive license with the NFL.

The console business is tough. The current business model is to create top-end hardware as a loss-leader, recouping costs through software sales. The Wii is an anomaly, and it's hard to imagine EA trying to build a console on the cheap (i.e. one that can be sold from the start at a profit) and being successful with it. And if they went the loss-leader route with technologically advanced hardware, do they have the resources to ride out the initially heavy losses they're sure to endure? MS can afford to bleed money for several years to establish a lasting stake in the console business - I really doubt EA can afford to the same thing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The console business is tough. The current business model is to create top-end hardware as a loss-leader, recouping costs through software sales. The Wii is an anomaly, and it's hard to imagine EA trying to build a console on the cheap (i.e. one that can be sold from the start at a profit) and being successful with it. And if they went the loss-leader route with technologically advanced hardware, do they have the resources to ride out the initially heavy losses they're sure to endure? MS can afford to bleed money for several years to establish a lasting stake in the console business - I really doubt EA can afford to the same thing.

In the context of the current market, yes, but Nintendo did essentially the same thing with the NES and SNES, in that they deliberately did not go high-end on the product in order to keep it both profitable and affordable. Really, you could argue that Nintendo's one effort to outstrip the competition in terms of horsepower was also their weakest generation - the N64. They lost a number of third-party licensees during that time, and near the end of its life, the system was down to very sporadic releases, nearly all of them first-party.

In retrospect I kind of look at the GameCube as Nintendo transitioning back to their old business model, as it wasn't really a do-our-own-thing kind of machine, but it only halfheartedly tried to keep up with the Joneses.

[Kodos]

Hi, Super Nintendo Chalmers!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

In the context of the current market, yes, but Nintendo did essentially the same thing with the NES and SNES, in that they deliberately did not go high-end on the product in order to keep it both profitable and affordable. Really, you could argue that Nintendo's one effort to outstrip the competition in terms of horsepower was also their weakest generation - the N64. They lost a number of third-party licensees during that time, and near the end of its life, the system was down to very sporadic releases, nearly all of them first-party.

In retrospect I kind of look at the GameCube as Nintendo transitioning back to their old business model, as it wasn't really a do-our-own-thing kind of machine, but it only halfheartedly tried to keep up with the Joneses.

Sure, and Nintendo relies heavily on 1st party software to support their platform, so that provides a precedence for EA.

The difference being, most (if not all) of Nintendo's titles aren't built on latest-gen graphics and computing horsepower. I'm sure their games could look even better and maybe do a bit more with the extra horsepower of a PS3 or 360, but it's not necessary to the core appeal of their games. I'm not sure you could say the same thing about EA's games...

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'll have to watch this when I get home - what's the release date?

March 9th

[Kodos]

April 29th is the date I'm waiting for.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I remember playing mortal combat, that looks like the same thing but with Mario. I can see why I haven't become a Wiitard yet.

Yep. All fighting games are exactly the same. Well done.

[Big Fo]

SackAttack - Well the SNES was significantly more powerful than the Sega Genesis (it's main competition here) and the and Turbo-graphix 16 (which strangely outsold the Genesis in Japan) and the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 (check screenshot comparisons of RE4) so the Wii really is an anomaly in terms of how powerful Nintendo's hardware is/was compared to its competition.

MattJones - I never owned a N64 or a Gamecube so I'm a bit of a Smash noob, when the game comes out I'll be wanting to play you online since I need to hone my skills for local multiplayer.

wade moore - Smash officially comes out on Sunday, it may or may not take a day or two to land on store shelves.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

April 29th is the date I'm waiting for.

GTA IV?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

GTA IV?

Def Leppard's new album comes out.

[MJ4H]

Is this a good time to mention I never understood the appeal of the GTA games?

[Kodos]

See, now GTA, I actually enjoyed those games. Although they got old after a while, and the missions could be a pain in the butt. That being said, GTA is a great outlet for pent up aggression.

[Big Fo]

Both the Super Mario and GTA series are among my favorites. Hopefully GTA4 lives up to the hype.

[Calis]

I've always been a big fan of the GTA games just for driving throughout the town and messing around while I listen to the soundtrack.

The GTA radio is probably the main reason I enjoy the games.

[MJ4H]

For the record, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is not a "Mario game" even though Mario is in it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

SackAttack - Well the SNES was significantly more powerful than the Sega Genesis (it's main competition here) and the and Turbo-graphix 16 (which strangely outsold the Genesis in Japan) and the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 (check screenshot comparisons of RE4) so the Wii really is an anomaly in terms of how powerful Nintendo's hardware is/was compared to its competition.

Eh...yes and no.

The SNES had some chips that let it do some things differently than the Genesis (I think StarFox is a pretty good example there), but in terms of raw processing power the Genesis had the edge. Problem was, Nintendo had the licensing clout, and so the Genesis had trouble getting games until EA got on board.

The GameCube/PS2 comparison is a little disingenuous, mostly because Sony skimped on RAM on the system. You wound up with a great pixel pusher that frequently didn't look as good as GameCube or Xbox games, because there simply wasn't enough memory for textures without resorting to some neat tricks (Gran Turismo 3 is one of the great early examples of that). They made more of an effort to stay on a par with the competition, but I think that has to do more with having two strong competitors for the first time in, well, ever.

By the time Sony was ascendant, Sega was starting to have the problems that would lead to their demise as a hardware publisher.

During the 8-bit era, Atari was in shambles, and when the 16-bit era rolled around, you had Sega with the Genesis, and NEC with the TG-16, which wasn't really 16 bits at all (never mind its poor sales domestically).

I think with the GameCube they said, "Well, Sony's dominant right now, Microsoft has the money to compete on their level, and we already have a stumbling block in terms of trying to repair our relationships with third parties. We can't afford to totally concede the graphical advantage."

With the Wii, that was radically different enough in terms of approach that I think they felt safe in going back to their "mature technology" business plan.

[Big Fo]

I've discovered some songs I really liked that I otherwise never would have heard otherwise on GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas, plus some of the talk radio skits are hilarious. It's part of the reason I liked those games as much as I did.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Calis

I've always been a big fan of the GTA games just for driving throughout the town and messing around while I listen to the soundtrack.

The GTA radio is probably the main reason I enjoy the games.

Same here. I've enjoyed that as much as any of the missions in each of the previous games.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Eh...yes and no.

The SNES had some chips that let it do some things differently than the Genesis (I think StarFox is a pretty good example there), but in terms of raw processing power the Genesis had the edge. Problem was, Nintendo had the licensing clout, and so the Genesis had trouble getting games until EA got on board.

The SNES's processor was half the speed of the Genesis but the SNES had almost double the memory. The add-on chips for each game also helped quite a bit as you said. Nothing on the Genesis looked as good as Killer Instinct, the Donkey Kong Country series, or Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island plus multiplatform games (Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter 2, NBA Jam, etc.) also looked better on the SNES most of the time, EA Sports games being an exception.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The SNES had some chips that let it do some things differently than the Genesis (I think StarFox is a pretty good example there), but in terms of raw processing power the Genesis had the edge. Problem was, Nintendo had the licensing clout, and so the Genesis had trouble getting games until EA got on board.

No way. Genesis may or may not have had a faster clock speed on its CPU (I don't care too look it up), but that's irrelevant. The Super NES was ahead in technology and horsepower. Genesis couldn't touch it.

[Fidatelo]

SNES HAD MODE 7!

[Tigercat]

SEGA GENESIS HAS BLAST PROCESSING!

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Yep. All fighting games are exactly the same. Well done.

Thanks. It was hard to figure out but I finally got it.

[Kodos]

"FINISH MARIO!"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

"FINISH MARIO!"

KONGALITY! YOU WIN!

[MJ4H]

You guys are making this wait even harder

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

You guys are making this wait even harder

There's plenty of bargain bin third-party Wii games to keep you busy until then.

[MJ4H]

That's true. Some of them are really good, too. Mercury Meltdown Revolution is great and only $20, for instance.

Doesn't help the wait for Brawl, though, really at all.

[Kodos]

Have you tried Super Smash Bros. Training Brawl?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's plenty of bargain bin third-party Wii games to keep you busy until then.

Or he could pick up a PS3 and play it's one of two decent exclusives while enjoying multiplatform games that are only 10% (typical 360/PS3 game) to 1000% (anything where keyboard/mouse replaces dual analog) better on the 360 or PC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Or he could pick up a PS3 and play it's one of two decent exclusives while enjoying multiplatform games that are only 10% (typical 360/PS3 game) to 1000% (anything where keyboard/mouse replaces dual analog) better on the 360 or PC.

Two decent exclusives is certainly an interesting assessment. Also, opinions are mixed on multiconsole game quality (which games are better on which console) depending on where you look. But I'll certainly agree that it's subjective and little more than one person's opinion.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

The SNES's processor was half the speed of the Genesis but the SNES had almost double the memory. The add-on chips for each game also helped quite a bit as you said. Nothing on the Genesis looked as good as Killer Instinct, the Donkey Kong Country series, or Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island plus multiplatform games (Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter 2, NBA Jam, etc.) also looked better on the SNES most of the time, EA Sports games being an exception.

The difference on the add-on chips is that they were part of the software. It provided a definite advantage in the long run, but the core system struggled an awful lot in the first year or so of the system's release. Took 'em about that much time to start releasing some of the games with add-ons, and once they started doing that, the SNES didn't look back.

But in the early days, the CPU speed made a lot more difference than the extra RAM did in the eyes of the consumer, which is a big part of why the Genesis ultimately took Nintendo from a near-100% market share to something more like 55-60%. You don't erode a monopoly just because you're different.

Were that the case, Jack Tramiel might have had more success with the Atari 7800, and NEC might have actually made an impact in the global market with the TG-16. NEC, remember, was an electronics giant. Think of them as the hardware Microsoft, and you'll have the appropriate context for their entry into the market.

[Eaglesfan27]

A very interesting article from freakonomics blog of the NYtimes with some big minds that backs the point I was making about Blu-Ray's victory being very costly and too late with newer technologies being in development. Therefore, a hard lesson for Sony:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...nomics-quorum/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

A very interesting article from freakonomics blog of the NYtimes with some big minds that backs the point I was making about Blu-Ray's victory being very costly and too late with newer technologies being in development. Therefore, a hard lesson for Sony:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...nomics-quorum/

I think that their general point regarding large, expensive outlays to win these kinds of battles is spot on. It wouldn't apply just to BR/HD-DVD, but also the console wars. Nintendo, regardless of where they end up at the end of this generation of consoles, has made the best business decision for their company and that can't be denied. They created a console that sold well and was profitable from the start. Any smart business exec is going to choose that business model every day of the week. Since these guys are strictly speaking from an economic standpoint, the best profit = the best move.

A couple of the professors showed their lack of current knowledge on the topic. One of them said that Sony isn't anywhere to be found in the download/streaming movie market. It's already been widely mentioned that the April PSN store update will include movie downloads (standard-def). Also, three of the discussion board members mentioned downloads, but no mention of HD downloads/streaming was made. They're not comparing apples to apples. As has been mentioned before, HD media over the net at a similar quality as BR is several years away at a minimum in regards to mass market distribution. It's premature speculation to assume that HD digital distribution will close down the window of opportunity for Blu-ray.

[TazFTW]

NCAA 09 will have four cover athletes. Darren McFadden will be on the cover of the 360 version.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...31&Symbol=ERTS

In anticipation for the NFL Draft, EA will announce the exclusive cover athlete for the PLAYSTATION 3 system on April 24, while the exclusive cover athletes for the PlayStation 2 and the PSP systems will be unveiled the beginning of May. The Wii(TM) cover will feature the winner from the NCAA Football 09 Cover Mascot Challenge, and will be announced on the NCAA Football 09 website on March 18.

Heh.

[Big Fo]

Can't wait for the first report of someone smashing a lamp after chucking the Wiimote on an option play.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Also, three of the discussion board members mentioned downloads, but no mention of HD downloads/streaming was made. They're not comparing apples to apples. As has been mentioned before, HD media over the net at a similar quality as BR is several years away at a minimum in regards to mass market distribution. It's premature speculation to assume that HD digital distribution will close down the window of opportunity for Blu-ray.

One thing we learned from music's conversion from physical media to downloads is that the masses don't really care nearly as much about pure quality compared to things like cost and convenience. I'm generally an early adopter on technology and I still think my DVDs look great on my HD projector... I can't imagine the average consumer caring much at all about the difference between HDM and quality 480p downloads especially at 100-150% price differences.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

One thing we learned from music's conversion from physical media to downloads is that the masses don't really care nearly as much about pure quality compared to things like cost and convenience. I'm generally an early adopter on technology and I still think my DVDs look great on my HD projector... I can't imagine the average consumer caring much at all about the difference between HDM and quality 480p downloads especially at 100-150% price differences.

But those price differences are already being slashed drastically, even in the past week. Two of the big studios cut $10 off their Blu-ray SMRP's this past week to $29.99. To give you a comparison, that's the same SMRP as many of the new releases on regular DVD (though we all know that the big box retailers routinely sell them for $19.99-24.99). So there's really only a 50% difference right now and that will shrink even further as we approach the holiday season. Those numbers are more scare tactics by critics of the Blu-ray format than actual reality. If your 100-150% number were accurate assuming standard DVD new releases (which typically sell for $19.99), that would mean that Blu-ray new releases would be selling for $40-50. The reality is that they are selling for $30-35 upon release right now and will be even cheaper as the year progresses, which is not anything close to 100-150%.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting news here. News leaked that Microsoft is in negotiations with Sony to put an add-on BR player or integrated 360 BR player in their Xbox 360 machines. Apple is also in final negotiations to add BR to their computers. A large boost in revenue is expected for Sony if these deals go through. A premium model of the 360 would have to be introduced at a higher price point if they want to integrate the BR drive.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6017de-e...nclick_check=1

[SackAttack]

I'm calling total shenanigans on the idea of an integrated BD player in Xbox 360. I'm skeptical about the idea of an add-on, but I won't rule that out. But integrated? Wouldn't that essentially mean Sony would start getting a cut of their competitor's hardware sales? I can't imagine Microsoft would be thrilled about that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm calling total shenanigans on the idea of an integrated BD player in Xbox 360. I'm skeptical about the idea of an add-on, but I won't rule that out. But integrated? Wouldn't that essentially mean Sony would start getting a cut of their competitor's hardware sales? I can't imagine Microsoft would be thrilled about that.

It would mean exactly that. FWIW.......the article stated that they were in negotiations. What the final end product will be if they can agree on a deal is nothing but speculation on the part of the article's author at this point. I certainly agree with you that the possibility of an add-on is much better than the integrated option.

[SackAttack]

Well, if it's the article I remember reading, it's actually a high muckety-muck in Sony who's saying "Oh yeah, we're negotiating." Microsoft has said "No comment."

The Sony dude, he's got a vested interest in making things look as rosy as possible. Number one, you get sort of that unspoken implication to the consumer that "Look, the Xbox 360 is definitely maybe going to have a BD drive inside...but why wait for that? Why not just buy a super-amazing-awesome PlayStation 3 now?"

Number two, it makes for posturing opportunities with the software publishers. "Look, our major competitor is being brought to heel. Look how right we were. Wouldn't you rather do business with the guys behind the wheel than the guys doing the whole Teen Wolf urban-surfing bit on the roof of the car?"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Well, if it's the article I remember reading, it's actually a high muckety-muck in Sony who's saying "Oh yeah, we're negotiating." Microsoft has said "No comment."

Yeah, but 'No Comment' seems to be status quo for Microsoft this generation when a rumor has some legs. I agree that it's not a given, but a non-denial denial shouldn't be the reason why this rumor isn't to be believed. If anything, Microsoft has usually been quick to deny any false information while letting rumors that are truthful stand as they are without actually acknowledging that they are true.

There's nothing wrong with handling it that way as long as MS is consistant with it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, but 'No Comment' seems to be status quo for Microsoft this generation when a rumor has some legs. I agree that it's not a given, but a non-denial denial shouldn't be the reason why this rumor isn't to be believed. If anything, Microsoft has usually been quick to deny any false information while letting rumors that are truthful stand as they are without actually acknowledging that they are true.

There's nothing wrong with handling it that way as long as MS is consistant with it.

Microsoft doesn't comment on rumor, period. They might refute grossly inaccurate information that might do material harm to the business, but they won't comment otherwise. The only 'legs' this one has is that:

a) HD-DVD is dead
b) A high muckety-muck with Sony has trumpeted to the world that Microsoft is in negotiations. He can say whatever he wants about the substance of those negotiations, and Microsoft is still going to "No comment" the issue.

Now, I mean, I really don't see anything coming of this. We've already talked about why I think an integrated player isn't going to happen (and it has the additional bonus of sharing some of the same reasons why many felt an integrated HD-DVD player wasn't going to happen in mid-generation).

The other half of it, though, is that Microsoft backed HD in large part because it wasn't BD. They wanted to slow adoption of the competing format to the point that it wouldn't be the major profit center Sony thinks it will be. I can't see them capitulating and now helping to drive that same profit center when they won't get any revenues from it. The only possible material benefit to having an add-on BD player would be sales of the player itself. Nobody's going to buy a 360 because it has an add-on BD drive available, especially since I don't think Microsoft would be able to sell one of those for $180. The eventual cost of one of those with a 360 would make it more expensive than a PS3, and I think Microsoft is sensitive to that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Now, I mean, I really don't see anything coming of this. We've already talked about why I think an integrated player isn't going to happen (and it has the additional bonus of sharing some of the same reasons why many felt an integrated HD-DVD player wasn't going to happen in mid-generation).

The other half of it, though, is that Microsoft backed HD in large part because it wasn't BD. They wanted to slow adoption of the competing format to the point that it wouldn't be the major profit center Sony thinks it will be. I can't see them capitulating and now helping to drive that same profit center when they won't get any revenues from it. The only possible material benefit to having an add-on BD player would be sales of the player itself. Nobody's going to buy a 360 because it has an add-on BD drive available, especially since I don't think Microsoft would be able to sell one of those for $180. The eventual cost of one of those with a 360 would make it more expensive than a PS3, and I think Microsoft is sensitive to that.

FWIW......If I was the 'muckety-muck' at Microsoft, I wouldn't even consider it as a possibility and I'd have already have issued a flat denial that it would ever occur. I've always said that MS's best move is to just stick to the game business on their console. That's their strength right now and they should play to it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Speculation that a 60 GB Xbox 360 may be in the works to replace the 20 GB version. Earliest it would arrive is June. They surmise that a integrated BR drive may be in it as well, but no firm info.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/gaming...-20GB-Model/p1

[stevew]

i bet they charge about 40-50 bucks for a blu ray remote, if the console integrates one. I seem to remember the dvd remote was about 30ish for the original xbox, primarily cause they were passing the licensing fees along.

[Eaglesfan27]

Earlier today, a Microsoft rep said there are no plans to bring Blu-Ray to the 360 and that they are focused on games for the 360.

Here is part of the statement:

"Games are what are driving consumers to purchase game consoles and we remain focused on providing the largest library of blockbuster games available."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=184130