March Console Sales Numbers (omg)

[gstelmack]

Someone should link to the "EA emphasizes quality over release schedule" now...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Someone should link to the "EA emphasizes quality over release schedule" now...

Absolutely. If anything, all these numbers show is that EA runs to wherever the profits lie. I rarely buy EA games and never buy the EA Sports games, but there's obviously a lot of people who do still buy them, though that number has obviously decreased over the past 3-4 years.

[gstelmack]

I was going to make some snide comment about how the 360 folks are clearly more discerning about quality, but figured that was too snide and low to actually make, so I decided not to.

[Fidatelo]

I'm pretty sure they call it '09 so that it has longer shelf life.

[Fidatelo]

Dola...

I take issue with the idea that the Wii is less of a profit maker than the PS3 or 360. EA releases far fewer titles on the Wii, so of course their totals will be lower. Shouldn't the important number be the total they make divided by the number of titles released? Wouldn't that more accurately show which machine can garner more profit?

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The revenue margins trends over the past three quarters provide good insight as to why EA is moving toward the PS3 as their primary development console.

Uh, didn't they make this decision long before Q4 FY08? I thought they made this decision when the PS3 version of Madden was a piece of shit.

Didn't this have something to with the fact that the PS3 is harder to develop for and it is easier to go PS3 -> 360 instead of the other way like they did when PS3 Madden turned out to be a dog?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I was going to make some snide comment about how the 360 folks are clearly more discerning about quality, but figured that was too snide and low to actually make, so I decided not to.

Your restraint is admirable, despite the fact that you still made the comment.

If quality decided these console battles, we'd have much different results over the past 20-25 years.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your restraint is admirable, despite the fact that you still made the comment.

If quality decided these console battles, we'd have much different results over the past 20-25 years.

Oh, I agree, and it was actually more of a dig at EA. I just couldn't help but be thinking there was a consecutive thread hilarity bit buried somewhere in these posts close together. Not necessarily true, just funny.

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm pretty sure they call it '09 so that it has longer shelf life.

This is much more likely the case, and even beyond this I thought there was a time when the yearly titles even had the correct years, but someone had the idea that hey if we're a year ahead we'll get more sales for being more advanced and everyone followed suit. I could be wrong though, but I'm sure it has a lot less to do with fiscal year than it does with sales and looking "new".

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The Wii, despite its large user base and high attach ratio overall, falls a distant third in revenue among current-gen systems, backing up third party claims that they have sales issues when competing against Nintendo's 1st party titles.

In addition, EA still has a loyal following with the PS2 owners, pumping out a massive revenue despite being a last-gen console. The PS2 owners are almost like a minor league pool at this point. Where these gamers go when they upgrade to the current gen of systems will be what swings the final figures in this generation.

Let's compare what EA released on the PS3 and the Wii during that quarter:

Wii -

Ninja Reflex (a collection of shitty minigames)

Obviously not all revenue came from games released that quarter, so EA Playground (another shitty minigame collection), Smarty Pants (you guessed, more shitty minigames) and the various sports titles (of which some like Tiger Woods are decent games and the Wii version did sell the most, with the 360 version in 2nd, PS3 in 3rd if we limit this to current-gen home consoles)

PS3 -

Army of Two
Burnout Paradise
NFL Tour
FIFA Street

Army of Two and Burnout Paradise sold well and Burnout Paradise at least was critically acclaimed while Army of Two is an FPS that was heavily marketed.

Then you have the typical sports titles, some of which like Fight Night, NBA Street, NCAA Football, and March Madness don't have a Wii version.

Then there's Rock Band which retails for $170 and has a ton of DLC available, Medal of Honor: Airborne, Skate., Def Jam Icon, Half-Life 2: the Orange Box, etc.

It's no wonder that EA has been passed by Activision as the number one third-party publisher, look at how they are supporting the market leader. It makes no sense.

Do you think it's possible that EA spent more to create their PS3 lineup than the Wii lineup looking at the quality and quantity of releases? Revenue statements aren't nearly as valuable as profit statements, but anyway the Wii pulled in more revenue for the fiscal year than the PS3 despite receiving fewer and worse games:

PS2 - 601m
360 - 589m
Wii - 302m
PS3 - 284m

But keep on spinning, it's been providing entertainment for months now.

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I take issue with the idea that the Wii is less of a profit maker than the PS3 or 360. EA releases far fewer titles on the Wii, so of course their totals will be lower. Shouldn't the important number be the total they make divided by the number of titles released? Wouldn't that more accurately show which machine can garner more profit?

Absolutely not, you're talking crazy here. Third-party profits are only possible by utilizing the power of the Cell processor. EA is the entire games industry. No Wii owner has ever played a game other than Wii Sports. Anyone who has bought a Wii was either a GameCube owner or someone's grandma. 360s only sell to Halo fans that owned the XBox. It's only a matter of time before the 120 million PS2 owners buy a PS3.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Dola...

I take issue with the idea that the Wii is less of a profit maker than the PS3 or 360. EA releases far fewer titles on the Wii, so of course their totals will be lower. Shouldn't the important number be the total they make divided by the number of titles released? Wouldn't that more accurately show which machine can garner more profit?

EA releases fewer titles on the Wii for a reason. They're making a killing off releasing yearly sports updates on the other 2 consoles, which have much higher price points.

The Wii is similar to the PS2 as far as EA is concerned. They can pump out new games with minimal updates and relatively cheap development costs, but they're really not all that concerned about innovation or quality on the PS2 or Wii.

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Do you think it's possible that EA spent more to create their PS3 lineup than the Wii lineup looking at the quality and quantity of releases? Revenue statements aren't nearly as valuable as profit statements, but anyway the Wii pulled in more revenue for the fiscal year than the PS3 despite receiving fewer and worse games:

PS2 - 601m
360 - 589m
Wii - 302m
PS3 - 284m

You're right. Revenue statements aren't valuable at all. If anything, these revenue numbers when compared to profit numbers show that the profit margin for EA is strongest on the PS3 out of those 4 consoles. And we all know that EA is all about profit, even to the point of sacrificing game quality.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

EGM is reporting that Bioshock will be released in September on the PS3. No doubt Microsoft will have to pay now to seal up a timed exclusive on this franchise for the upcoming sequels.

http://www.n4g.com/gaming/NewsCom-145697.aspx?CT=2

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

EA releases fewer titles on the Wii for a reason. They're making a killing off releasing yearly sports updates on the other 2 consoles, which have much higher price points.

The Wii is similar to the PS2 as far as EA is concerned. They can pump out new games with minimal updates and relatively cheap development costs, but they're really not all that concerned about innovation or quality on the PS2 or Wii.



You're right. Revenue statements aren't valuable at all. If anything, these revenue numbers when compared to profit numbers show that the profit margin for EA is strongest on the PS3 out of those 4 consoles. And we all know that EA is all about profit, even to the point of sacrificing game quality.

That must be why every sports game EA does is going to have a Wii version next year with an entirely different feature set from the ps3 and 360 versions.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

That must be why every sports game EA does is going to have a Wii version next year with an entirely different feature set from the ps3 and 360 versions.

Nicely played sir.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

That must be why every sports game EA does is going to have a Wii version next year with an entirely different feature set from the ps3 and 360 versions.

List the 'different feature sets' in the games. There's nothing that I've seen that makes one think that they're a major advancement, but that's par for the course with EA.

Also, they likely still won't sell worth a lick. EA Sports sales on the Wii have been miserable thus far. Adding a couple of features isn't going to suddenly turn these games into must-have third-party titles. Any Wii fan such as yourself that thinks that EA Sports games are going to sell well is just setting themselves up for major disappointment.

[MJ4H]

The different feature set is called "family play." I didn't say it was a major advancement or that it is even something I would even enjoy. The point was to demonstrate that the idea that they don't care about development on the Wii, the console with the largest install base and a growing margin, is just silly. Last year, they didn't even have all of their main sports franchises on the Wii (NCAA, NHL). This year, they do. They are increasing what they are doing with the Wii and not just porting them because, just like most people, they were late to the Wii party.

That said, EA sucks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

The different feature set is called "family play." I didn't say it was a major advancement or that it is even something I would even enjoy. The point was to demonstrate that the idea that they don't care about development on the Wii, the console with the largest install base and a growing margin, is just silly.

So they care about the development so much that they've added a dumbed-down control system to draw in the masses? What's much more likely to happen is that the 'casual' player will still ignore it and purchase sports games that were specifically designed for the Wii such as Mario Baseball. Meanwhile, the hardcore gamer will opt for the 360/PS3 version of the game. I'll go out on a limb and say you can even bank on that scenario. It's going to fail miserably. The reason is because EA still doesn't have a clue what the gamers on each system truly want. If they took any time to make a quality game, their numbers would go through the roof on all systems. Instead, we get the yearly updates and people are increasingly shruging them off.

[MJ4H]

I don't dispute EA sucks. But they are not ignoring the Wii. They are stepping up their work on it. And yes, adding a control scheme that appeals to a wider audience counts for that. So does increasing their range of games they are releasing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Surprising to see a Nintendo exec so defensive about the term 'casual gamer' being associated with his console..........

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=189014

For me, you are a gamer or non-gamer. I think most of you know that you can spend ten or twenty hours on an internet flash game and have not realized. The guy who plays these games regularly — he's a core gamer. Someone who is fifty-years old who only plays Brain Training, but plays it like a core gamer is a core gamer. I don't like this word casual so much. Because people consider that casual needs to be something easy. If you're good at any game you can play at a high difficulty level. Take Tetris. There is incredible gameplay, it's very simple, very easy to understand, but it's also very different. I think a game can be a light enough to enjoy and for all gamers to become a core gamer on it. There is no casual gaming. There is just a different way to play.

[spleen1015]

I don't think he is being defensive at all. He's just expressing his opinion.

You continue to crack me up. I used to wonder why you tooted the Sony horn so much. Now, I hope you keep it up because it is very entertaining watching you come up with the twisted ways to make the 360 and the Wii look bad.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't think he is being defensive at all. He's just expressing his opinion.

It's certainly not a good move if he is 'just expressing his opinion' as you say. His core audience and much of the recent success with the Wii is attributed to the casual gamer segment. As most people in the media have noted, his comments come off as a PR move by him and Nintendo to try to distance themselves from that label to avoid losing hardcore gamers who prefer a more in-depth gaming experience. Obviously, the EA move to dumb-down their games for the Wii certainly hurts in that regard. Nintendo is starting to realize that they shouldn't paint themselves into a corner in regards to gamer segments.

[Danny]

I'm not sure I've even seen a parent defend their first born with such ferocity, so props to you Mizzou

[MikeVic]

Do these casual gamers really care what this guy says? They just want to play games.

[cartman]

I find it hilarious that MBBF has to hold his nose and use EA data to support his PS3 fixation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Do these casual gamers really care what this guy says? They just want to play games.

That's my exact point. His statement isn't relevant to the group of casual gamers who have purchased or will purchase the Wii. He's making these comments because the group of avid gamers are starting to wonder if the Wii is moving too far towards casual games. With that said, Sega announced a couple of gore-fests today that will likely make Jack Thompson stand on his head, so that should help with any concerns.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

I find it hilarious that MBBF has to hold his nose and use EA data to support his PS3 fixation.

I find it funny that you would be so dismissive of EA effect on the market. Most will agree that their games are substandard, but most people outside of you would never downgrade the financial impact that EA has on the market. I don't buy EA games, but they definitely are relevant and have a big effect on the overall console market.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

IAs most people in the media have noted, his comments come off as a PR move by him and Nintendo to try to distance themselves from that label to avoid losing hardcore gamers who prefer a more in-depth gaming experience.

It is safe to say that they built the Wii to get what the rest of the world defines as the casual gamer to play games. Do you really think they are worried about the so called hardcore gamer?

They don't give a shit. They just want to sell consoles and games. They don't care if grandmas are playing Wii Sports or you. They just know that there are a shit ton of people buying their product.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I find it funny that you would be so dismissive of EA effect on the market. Most will agree that their games are substandard, but most people outside of you would never downgrade the financial impact that EA has on the market. I don't buy EA games, but they definitely are relevant and have a big effect on the overall console market.

Goddamn you are touchy. Please point out where I can be construed as dismissing EA? You are the one that continually bangs the drum about how horrible EA is, but when the data supports PS3, you swallow your EA hatred and tout the news. It's so transparent that it is pathetic.

[BrianD]

I do find the core gamer/casual gamer labels to be interesting. Considering the Wii games seem to be all about fun and less about being pretty, I'd actually consider Wii gamers to be core gamers. They are all about the games. The PS2/PS3/360 gamers who complain about games not being pretty enough and shelving them after playing for a short time (or after finishing a game with a 6-hour story) seems more like a casual gamer to me.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I do find the core gamer/casual gamer labels to be interesting. Considering the Wii games seem to be all about fun and less about being pretty, I'd actually consider Wii gamers to be core gamers. They are all about the games. The PS2/PS3/360 gamers who complain about games not being pretty enough and shelving them after playing for a short time (or after finishing a game with a 6-hour story) seems more like a casual gamer to me.

That's what I thought when i first heard the terms. Core gamers care about the gameplay and how good the actual game is. Regardless of graphics. But it seems like core gamers are like that, but also include graphics and care about this whole console war. And casual are gamers that don't care about the war results, but they can also still care about graphics and stuff.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I do find the core gamer/casual gamer labels to be interesting. Considering the Wii games seem to be all about fun and less about being pretty, I'd actually consider Wii gamers to be core gamers. They are all about the games. The PS2/PS3/360 gamers who complain about games not being pretty enough and shelving them after playing for a short time (or after finishing a game with a 6-hour story) seems more like a casual gamer to me.

It's a very good point. The label can vary depending on where the definition comes from. I totally disagree with the implication that a gamer who values both high quality visuals AND gameplay is the definition of a casual gamer. There's plenty of core gamers who value both and think that you don't have to exclude one trait to have the other in a game.

I also totally disagree that the 'Wii games seem to be all about fun' if you're speaking about the entire library. There's a ton of terrible games out for the Wii. Certainly there are 'fun' game on the Wii as their are on the other two systems. The AAA titles for the Wii are definitely a 'love them or hate them' situation for most people. There's little in between in that regard.

[Cringer]

Just my opinion here, but I take casual/hardcore gamers as the same as my wife and myself. She is casual, I am more hardcore. We both love graphics if they are there, and want our games to be fun or else why play them? The difference is I play way more and want more involved games. FOF for example, GTA IV is another one. She will play GTA, but just for a few minutes to smack some people around. She likes the Sims, and Final Fantasy. Games that don't have a big learning curve. She wants to dive in and have some fun right away. I prefer more in depth games even if that means it takes time to master the gameplay and work my way through things.

[MJ4H]

In addition to a lot of other nonsensical things that have been said in this thread today, EA is not "dumbing down" their Wii versions. They are adding an option for family play which will be similar to playing Wii Sports: motion-controlled-centric. You could argue that they are adding the *option* to dumb the game down, but they are not dumbing down the entire game. They are adding an option to play in a simpler way.

[Big Fo]

NPDs are coming in about an hour or so, anyone know how to lock a thread once you've created it? A few times the old thread has gotten bumped despite the new thread having already been made and we don't need two of these on the front page IMHO.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

NPDs are coming in about an hour or so, anyone know how to lock a thread once you've created it? A few times the old thread has gotten bumped despite the new thread having already been made and we don't need two of these on the front page IMHO.

You can ask a Moderator to do it.