Network now...NEWS
Kotick: Consoles Not Hitting Mass-market Value
The games sector is healthy because consumers are attracted to the value of videogames, yet sales would improve further if the platform holders cut console retail prices.
That was the opinion of Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick during a recent interview with Reuters. And though he believes sales would be even better if hardware prices were reduced, Kotick stated that he doesn’t expect any price drops to occur soon.
“The price on platforms today has still not gotten down to mass-market price points,” he said. “I think when you're in the economic circumstances that the world has found itself in, there really is a difference between a $199 game system and a $299 game system.”
Kotick added that Nintendo’s Wii – a platform where its low pricepoint was a crucial factor in attaining high market share – will now be a bigger part of Activision Blizzard’s focus.
“In the past we approached the Wii as an extension of what we were doing on PlayStation and the Xbox,” he said.
Kotick claims that Activision Blizzard will now focus more on creating original content for the Wii. He added that this shift in focus will become apparent within the year.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Kotick does make some decent points, but as the guy who brags about exploiting franchises annually at $60 a game I don't think he's the right guy to be making this argument.
"Nintendo can't produce the Wii fast enough to satisfy demand so why should they drop the price?"
Let me edit that to a true statement
Nintendo is UNWILLING to produce Wiis at a rate which meets demand (in order to try to ride the fad as long as humanly possible)
Do the math and look at the sales numbers. They're still selling the same number of games from the same franchises to the same people they did on Gamecube. Nintendo enthusiasts and the Tween and under market. The "new customers" are going bowling and then letting the thing gather dust
So who are these phantom people that KEEP buying the Wii?!
Obviously its employees of Nintendo under instruction from Nintendo to go out and buy up all the extra stock, duh?!?!
Well I've already bought 10, but then I am a Nintendo 'fanboy'. So it must be the meployees!
I buy one a week and then burn it.
lol...! You guys are funny.
Lol, too funny.
I actually bought two Wiis, then sold them. I just couldn't get into it no matter how hard I tried. No achievements, I couldn't look at my friend's game list and what they play, no bio, no real multiplayer games or voice chat. No movie marketplace, it was like a ghost town with just myself to keep me company. I did enjoy a few moments of nostalgia with Castlevania and Actraiser though (even though I have those emulated on my PC already...)
Have several bottles of wine, with a couple friends, and play bowling/tennis. Wii has now become synonymous with piss-up. At least it has for me. And there we have it - Nintendo Invades The Weekend Binge Drinker Demographic.
The Wii for me personally is still a gimmick. The system isn't producing the type of games a gamer expected ever since it's release.
OK, it got gran, papa, and yer mum into gaming. But did anyone care if those types of demographic played games anyway?
The Wii is just dumbing down games for fuck wits! And every gamer knows it.
Sure, you'll get the fanboy saying otherwise. But they just haven't got the balls to admit it.
"OK, it got gran, papa, and yer mum into gaming. But did anyone care if those types of demographic played games anyway?"
Erm how about the shareholders at Nintendo, the senior/junior management, game developers, publishers - basically anyone who made more money from the expanded demographic? I think they cared.
You might think the Wii is a gimmick, and you might think anyone who isn't into 'hardcore' games is a 'fuck wit', but I don't think Nintendo care much. They've been raking in the cash from day one, storming the hardware charts pretty much the whole time.
I really don't see a reason for Nintendo to go back to the N64 days of pleasing the smaller hardcore crowd.
" I really don't see a reason for Nintendo to go back to the N64 days of pleasing the smaller hardcore crowd."
That's because there is no good reason. Apparently, certain hardcore gamers want all 3 console companies catering to them. It doesn't seem they want new people to be brought into the gaming community, and just want the industry to stagnate by selling the same products to the same people, decade after decade. Personally, i've never seen the logic behind it, as i think the more people playing video games and pumping money into the industry, the better. But it seems to be that they don't want "gran, papa, and yer mum," "soccor moms, " "kiddies" or whatever other group trying video games and possibly becoming "hardcore gamers."
I was just thinking Ozzy, is the "not catering to the hardcore" argument just an excuse for Nintendo to release a console with last gen tech with a motion sensing controller? It seems they could have pleased both crowds with one console (why WOULDN'T a grandma or little sister or whatever you want to call them play the Wii with the motion sensing controller if it had up-to-date visuals?). I think a Wii with all the bells and whistles of the 360/PS3 could cater to this new "casual" audience just as well as the current Wii does while still catering to the hardcore crowd. Games like SSIV, or RE5, Mercenaries, Tekken 6, CoD proper, Bad Company etc (all the major 3rd party titles that haven't/won't come out on the Wii) could then be released on the Wii in its HD form and Table Tennis Wii, or backyard backgammon could still be released as well. It seems Nintendo is expecting their faithful fans to excuse their dated technology for the sake of the greater gaming good? I don't think the Wii's larger audience is doing anything for me or the rest of the "hardcore" and I would actually prefer those casual individuals to become hardcore because they would stop buying the garbage they're buying and all that shovel ware would eventually go away.
So you're issue, Nick, is not the supposed "casual" focus, but the fact that these casual games don't have 'teh shaderz'? For me personally, the minimal step up from Gamecube doesn't bother me. But tha's just me. The new gamers most certainly not give a shit, clearly.
But the reason why Wii uses "dated" tech is not because Ninty isn't "catering to the hardcore", but because they wanted to profit from the sale of Wiis on DAY ONE - which they have - even at $250 a pop. There are no arguments being made here, Nintendo was open with their intentions from the get-go.
"SSIV, or RE5, Mercenaries, Tekken 6, CoD proper, Bad Company (all the major 3rd party titles that haven't/won't come out on the Wii)"
Just like No More Heroes, MadWorld, House of the Dead: Overkill, Monster Hunter 3, Dragon Quest X won't come out for the HD consoles. And I can always play the games you mentioned on the 360. I win no matter what.
What's up Ken?
So, I guess if my earlier posts weren't clear enough (or long enough) I'll try to be simple and to the point. I was just wondering aloud why Nintendo couldn't provide a system with updated visuals IN ADDITION to the new interface they introduced with the Wii. They could have catered to the casuals while providing a powerful system also for their long time fans. But from discussing this with Ozzy and Zach, it seems that even the traditional Wii gamers don't mind the minimal increase in graphic fidelity. But would you, Ozzy, or Zach like the Wii less if it offered the gameplay it currently does just with better visuals? I just think it wouldn't have hurt to offer what it does in the gameplay department AND had updated visuals. But with the price they were shooting for obviously that wasn't an option. I have a feeling they may remedy that next time. Or maybe not.
I get you have both systems and have the luxury of being able to play all the games, but just think if the Wii offered those games as well, then you would be able to get all your gaming needs out of the Wii as I'm sure you wouldn't have minded that (you paid 200-400 bucks for your 360 and if the Wii offered 360 features/games but cost an additional 100 bucks I'm sure you still would have bought it and just not bought a 360). But you're happy, so I'm happy for you. ^^
Here are my thoughts on what you say, Nicky. Might not be accurate, but my perception after talking to owners of the various consoles
"It seems they could have pleased both crowds with one console (why WOULDN'T a grandma or little sister or whatever you want to call them play the Wii with the motion sensing controller if it had up-to-date visuals?).
2 things about that one:
#1-Grandma Mary or little sister Suzie doesn't care about up-to-date visuals. More then likely, they don't even know that the Wii graphics aren't "up-to-date" because they've never seriously looked at a 360 or PS3, they just looked at "this Wii thing I read about in the paper ." I'm sure some of them do, and might switch to a 360/PS3 later on, which then benefits the hardcore gamer community as they probably then get into the hardcore gaming culture. But for the vast majority of Wii users, at least the ones I can speak from firsthand (myself, my brother, my parents, my best friend, my co-worker) the Wii graphics are "good enough." The games are plenty fun so if the graphics aren't "up-to-date", who cares, i'm having fun playing the game anyways and don't even notice.
#2-"up-to-date" graphics puts it at a price point where people wouldn't be willing to try it out to "see what all the fuss is about." I know at $400+, i wouldn't have purchased a Wii. Grandpa Fred and good ol' uncle Tommy would be even less inclined then me to shell out that much money for something they know nothing about.
"I think a Wii with all the bells and whistles of the 360/PS3 could cater to this new "casual" audience just as well as the current Wii does while still catering to the hardcore crowd"
At that point, the Wii is basically another 360/PS3 and then becomes in direct competition with them which, as displayed last generation, puts them in last. place Also, the more bells and whistles you add, the more intimidating it becomes, and more it would turn off new people from getting one. I don't know beans about HDMI, streaming video, online accounts or any of that business that, and the thought of buying a 360/PS3 and having to learn and sort out all that business is not appealing. I want to pop a disc in, turn it on, and play. I don't want to have to buy special cables (or figure out a pre-packaged one i've never seen before), figure out how to find online buddies, or any of that "fancy stuff". I just want to play a game for 30 minutes and then go do something else.
"Games like SSIV, or RE5, Mercenaries, Tekken 6, CoD proper, Bad Company etc (all the major 3rd party titles that haven't/won't come out on the Wii) could then be released on the Wii in its HD form and Table Tennis Wii, or backyard backgammon could still be released as well."
A Wii HD comes back to the price point above. As for the games you mentionned, they are all (correct me if i'm wrong, I don't follow that closely) multi-platform releases which hardcore gamers could all buy on a 360 or PS3, instead of an HD Wii. And, chances are, they WOULD buy it for their 360 or PS3, and not their HD Wii. So why bother developing, marketing and supporting an HD Wii for the few people that would buy it, and avoid causing the confusion 2 different models of Wii at 2 different prices would cause to the "casual gamer" looking to get into the market? Also, casual gamers haven't played RE1-4, Tekken 1-5 or anything else so those games mean nothing more or less to them then "Carnival Games" or "Cooking Mama."
"It seems Nintendo is expecting their faithful fans to excuse their dated technology for the sake of the greater gaming good?"
I disagree. I think Nintendo is giving their faithful fans an alternative to putting ANOTHER HD console to compete with the 2 already out there. Do we really need 3 doing the same thing? It's as easy as this. If you don't like the Wii's dated technology, then don't buy it.....or buy it twice and sell it twice ; ) If you like the games it has to offer, then buy it.
"I don't think the Wii's larger audience is doing anything for me or the rest of the "hardcore" and I would actually prefer those casual individuals to become hardcore because they would stop buying the garbage they're buying and all that shovel ware would eventually go away"
And I think that's what it's doing. The results may not be immediately obvious, but i can't imagine that out of all 50 million Wii purchasers (or however many have been sold), not a single one of them have played the games for it, liked them, and started looking at other games options available. For all you know, some poor sap you're killing online in COD4 hadn't played video games 2 years ago, bought a Wii 1 year ago, and has since bought a 360 to try gaming "at the next level." I don't physically know anyone like this, but i can't imagine NO ONE has done out all the Wii purchasers.
DANG, that's long. Sorry, boring day at work.
I can always count on Ozzy and Zach teaming up on me... ;)
My responses:
#1-Exactly my point, Gma and Suzie don't care about HD graphics which means they wouldn't care if they were "up-to-date" or not. So if they were equal to the other systems, they wouldn't NOT buy it just because it looked the way it did. That would make it more appealing to the hardcore. Would you like the Wii less or more if the graphics were equal to the HD consoles if the cost was the same?
#2-Of course that would make the price go up, but as we've learned I think the Wii's appeal has much less to do with price than everyone thinks. It's the marketing and the new control interface. If price were the issue, the Arcade would all of the sudden be selling 700k units a month since it's actually cheaper than a Wii. Price has little to do with it in my opinion.
#3-I disagree that having better graphics/more features would make it another 360/PS3 as long as it retained the motion control (the real selling point of the Wii IMO). And just because the system has the options or ability to be more "intimidating" you don't have to take advantage of the options. Have it set up where you plug the game in and it starts for the casual, but now you are offering the hardcore the option of having those intimidating features. There's no reason why a Wii can't be a Wii just because it offers more options for the hardcore while retaining the simplicity it currently offers. The casuals don't have to go online, they don't have to have friends or check their games out, but at least it would be there for the people who did want it. I'm saying the Wii can be the best of both worlds, interesting more attractive interface AS WELL as the options to do everything a 360/PS3 can do.
#4-Exactly my point again (which I think you're missing). Think if the Wii would have the casual audience it has now (assuming I'm right that it would still sell like it does at say, $299) based on the motion control interface but also had the hardware capabilities of the other systems. To be able to compete with the HD consoles on their front and still be appealing to the casual like it is that would be HUGE competition for MS and Sony since I'd have to imagine a lot of Nintendo's old fans (myself included) would have stuck by. The Wii having those multiplatform games wouldn't HURT it at all; it may have persuaded people still on the fence to buy a Wii since they know they can get the major 3rd party multiplatform releases on the Wii. You're missing my point entirely on your RE5 and Tekken 6 point. So what if the casual market never played RE 1-4 or Tekken 1-5, there not the ones who are going to be buying them (they're the ones buying carnival games and cooking mama). The hardcore fans that Nintendo could have retained would care. Nintendo could have potentially had the cooking mama/carnival games audience AND the Tekken/RE5/Mercenaries/SSIV etc audience.
#5-Lol, nice dig. Why does the Wii have to be an alternative to the other HD systems? You're telling me the Wii can't exist in its current form if the graphics were up-to-date? The Wii isn't appealing to people because the graphics are inferior, they don't even know they're inferior so they wouldn't know if they WEREN'T inferior either. The appeal of the Wii would be no different to them; it would be different to the hardcore, which is my point.
#6-So, I guess my point really is in the end is that I think the Wii could have captured the same new audience it has and retained any then-Nintendo fans that have left or even converted non-Nintendo fans to the system with both the HD appeal and the interface appeal that brought in the casuals. Best of both worlds it could have been (didn't mean to sound like Yoda there). And with my opinion of the price not being a factor like everyone thinks, it could have worked out. But, I do think that Nintendo making such a gamble probably thought price would factor in much more than it has (again, look at the arcade unit, $199 and sales only increased a little bit). It would have been an even bigger gamble if they had the feature set of the other two systems while retaining its mass-market appeal with the motion sensing. That's why I think Nintendo is in a much better position for their next system...scary...
On a sepeate note, I realized today that the Wii being the way it is has essentially saved the PS3 from an early death. The Wii and 360 both have a commanding lead over the PS3 in installed base (and the 360 has a much better software attach rate than the PS3) if the Wii were an HD system with similar features to the 360, 3rd parties would be developing CoD4, Mercs, RE5, etc...for two systems like they are now, but it would be the Wii and 360. But since the Wii can't really have ports like the 360/PS3 share, the PS3 is publisher's only other choice, if it weren't, I think the landscape would be very different right now...(just my opinion of course).
Sorry as well for length (not the first time I've said that if you know what I mean lol).
#1-Correct, as i said, they wouldn't care about the graphics one way or the other. So why put the extra cost into it, and give it a higher price tag, if the larger portion of people playing it won't care one way or the other? Making a console closer to price "sweetspot" faster, means more cash in your pocket. Also, do you think they could have been turning a profit on each unit from the start if they had made it HD? Why not give it less graphical power, AND a lower pricetag at launch, and open it up to more people's pricerange?
#2-Then we will have to agree to disagree because, from my experience, price is a HUGE factor. I've overheard my parents and my wife's friend both say "Well, if it's only $250, i'll give it a try." Personally, I think you underestimate price as a factor for people just trying video games for the first time. $400 is a pretty pricy experiment for something you're not even sure you'll like.
#3-I think you're looking at this through the eyes of a "gamer" and not a "casual." If I pickup a box and read on it "Includes HDMI cable....play online......stream movies...." and i don't know what any of that stuff is, i put the box down because I have no idea what i'm getting myself into. Or if it's more expensive because of all that . Here's a different example. Let's say i'm looking to buy a car and it's advertised "comes with duel cam overhead motor, all-terrain suspension, etc...." then i'm not buying it because I don't know what any of that means. Is that stuff better? Is that stuff what I need? Am I paying more for the vehcile because it has all that? Will i even use it if I buy this car? It causes a lot of unanswered questions that most people would be turned off by.
#4-You're right, i don't see your point. I don't see a 3rd HD console with a "gimmicky" and "unresponsive" control scheme getting hardcore gamers away from mashing buttons on a standard controller instead of "waggling it in the air like some kind of idiot." Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
#5-Again, i disagree with you completely. You think people that have been buying Xbox brand for 6 years or the Playstation brand for over a decade would all dump and run to Nintendo, you know "that kiddie company that was in last place last generation?"
#6-Sorry, i think you underestimate the importance of price and the Nintendo-brand name. A $199 Xbox arcade doesn't sell because it doesn't have the household name brand recognition "Nintendo" and "Mario" have. Parents remember buying their children a Nintendo back in the 80s and 90s, so they recognize what it is and how long it's been around. And a retirement home isn't shelling out $$$$ to get an Xbox and Call of Duty for it's residents. It's shelling out $$$$ for "Bowling" and "Brain Age." Different market, different customer completely.
As seems to be a re-occuring theme, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Trying to keep this short...^^
#1-As Zach and I were talking about, I didn't really think that maybe even the Nintendo fans of old didn't really care about HD and that the Wii audience may in fact be made up of the more casual new fans then the Nintendo fans from previous generations and making it HD would only appeal to a small fraction of their fans, hence, essentially useless. So, I'll agree with you there.
#2 (#6 too)-I used the $199 arcade system to argue my price point since it's not flying off the shelves. As Zach pointed out to me, it was a combo of price, software, etc. and that without everything else the Wii offered maybe being only $249 wouldn't have been enough. Agreed again...
#3-Good point.
#4-Lol, true. I was pissed when people labeled the Gamecube as kiddie when I owned one because there were plenty of games that looked just as good as Xbox 1 games and blew away PS2 games. So to those same gamers, they would have just dismissed it anyway. Good point.
#5-Yes, some of them. I had a GameCube and an Xbox (and a PS2 for a while). I would have and did buy one. But similar to my point (or Zach's point) there isn't enough of them to warrant the extra cost for such a small percentage of the Wii's potential audience.
#6-I think the Nintendo brand name has less to do with it than the control interface, marketing, and software. If it was just name, the N64 and Gamecube all would have been just as successful. I would attribute Wii's success to the combination of what they've done differentelly with the Wii than name recognition.
Zach pointed out to me that even the hardcore fans of the Wii is such a smaller percentage than the audience that could care less about those features that trying to cater to that particular audience wouldn't be nearly as cost effective. I guess I just thought that Wii owners that were traditional gamers would have wanted a little bit more out of the system. If not, or if that's just a small fraction of the Wii's audience, then there'd be no financial benefit for Nintendo to cater to them.
Ozzman, I couldn't have said it better myself.
For the HD thing, last I heard the HDTV market shar was in the range of 75-85% of all primary TVs in the home. It is growing every year, but it currently is not at a point where the majority of potential Wii buyers are considering its HD capability. Next generation when the technology is cheaper, I can easily see Nintendo introducing something that better competes graphic wise with the PS4/720
And as you said, the PS3 and 360 at there current price points are actually alienating the mass market. Microsoft has tried to compensate by stripping the 360 to get it to the Wii's price point. They certainly can't seem to sell the Pro or Elite to the mass market. Too expensive.
The Wii was also built to be accessible. The designed the Wii remote to have a more natural feel for those who have never handled a controller before. Just about every one has used a tv remote and tus picking up a Wii remote feels natural.
Online capabilities and offerings don't mean much if anything to the mass market. Video marketplace? Why do I need that, I have netflix and Cable. My friends gamelist? Yesterday he told me he was playing such and such while we spoke on the phone. Achievements? Yesterday I scored a perfect 300 and my friend and I spoke for quite some time about how to get it in bowling.
Most people aren't ready to move away from what they currently do. Meaning they can't miss what they never had. Nick is bothered by the lack of online features because he is used to having them on the 360. But someone who never had them does not know what they are missing.
But as I said earlier, Nintendo will most likely add more of what we would term "hardcore" features to the next Wii. The market will be ready for it. Will they try to duplicate everything Sony and MS will do with their next console? Probably not, but they will do enough to expand the experience for the mass market they attracted and appease the "hardcore"
AS for the titles Nick listed, I agree with you. Most people who own Wiis won't care because they never played the earlier versions. But they will be buying sequels to current Wii offerings.
Zach,
The only thing I really have to add that I didn't to Ozzy's response was the I'm referring to Nintendo having the same appeal to the casuals while offering more features for the hardcore. You say people don't miss the online features if they've never had them, but I'm willing to bet there are either hardcore Nintendo fans that have a Wii that WANT those features or hardcore Nintendo fans that have left because those features aren't present. As both you and Ozzy have said in the past, there are plenty of hardcore fans that have Wiis and i think they could have taken advantage of more hardcore features. I don't think you two believe the Wii has ONLY sold to the casuals. I'm talking about keeping the casuals happy with what they want while also including features/options for the hardcore. I'm sure there are plenty of Wii owners that ARE used to those features since they're not all casuals. That's where Nintendo mistepped IMO.
edit: I guess the question is is how many previous xbox 1 and PS2 owners are now Wii owners? If that number is very small, then I guess most Wii owners are NOT used to more robust online features, HD cababilities, or additional features not directly related to gameplay. Gamecube owners didn't really have that, so maybe Wii owners that are hardcore are hardcore in the Nintendo sense, but not when compared to xbox/ps owners, hence they don't care about features they've never had whether they're hardcore or casuals (since neither would be used to those features).
I do like to debate with you as you are one of the more level headed individuals in these discussions.
I agree that Nintendo could have appealed more to the hardcore. But I also see Nintendo's point of view that it is a losing battle. Why fight over 15% of the population when you can dominates the under served 85%.
That aside, online features are easy to add. All that is required is a software update. They could easily add many of the features that are currently enjoyed by PS3/360 fans. The reason they don't, I feel, is that it would only appeal to and/or benefit a small portion of their current user base.
But as to your opinion that the Wii's success is primarily do to the control scheme, that is only a part of it. It was a combined system of price, control and software. The control on its own would not be enough to sell the way it did. It is what got people's attention and what gave people the desire to go out an get one. Do you think they would have made the decision so easily if they had to spend $400? I don't. So adding that extra HD capabilities would have eaten into it success. Plus that HD capability would have only really appealed and mattered to that 15% Sony and MS are fighting over.
I guess my point is that if only a minority of the target market wants a feature, is it really worth the cost?
Thanks, you and Ozzy aren't so bad either even for Wii fanboys ^^ (kidding)
Excellent point, I didn't think price was an issue but you're probably right that maybe as many people wouldn't have jumped in if the price was so steep to start with. I think marketing and the control scheme are in fact aspects that made the Wii so attractive, but I didn't really think about the games (especially Wii sports, what a stroke of genius that was).
Yeah, I put an edit in there afterward where I considered the possibility that not many Wii fans are really asking for those features, even the traditional gaming fans of old. I've been a huge Nintendo fan all the way up to the GCN (probably why I tried to like the Wii so much) but I've gotten used to the xbox 1/360 and belong to a community of gamers (friends list is around 60) and there's a level of attachment/connectivity that you share with your online friends that I miss too much with the Wii. It's more than just gaming with the 360 and that's the intangible aspect of the 360 that is so alluring to me.
"I guess my point is that if only a minority of the target market wants a feature, is it really worth the cost?"
With the original Wii...no. But with the next Wii, they have an opportunity to keep their current audience and maybe take some of the 360/PS3's 15%. I'll be first on board if the Wii HD has 1080p, standard online features, matchmaking, and a better friend/name system (no more wii codes please). I'm a Nintendo fanboy at heart (if I was on forums during the SNES, N64, and Gamecube days I'd be known as the Nintendo defender).
I agree. The next Wii will definitely be HD. Possibly 1080p as it would be more cost effective at that point. We will also see more and better use of the internet. But it will not be a dramatic change or at least will be a slow change.
I can see Nintendo using the current Wii to build a better online experience. As I said, that is just software updates. They could make silly announcements like, Now you can create your own online name and not be defined by a random string of numbers, or something like that. Same for better online game matches. But it will be a bit slower than most traditional gamers would like.
Those features will come, but the new market needs to be conditioned for them first.
Edit: I never really considered myself a Wii fanboy (does any fanboy consider themselves one), but it will be the first console I buy from this generation (No I don't have one yet) I try to remain level headed about all the consoles. Praising them for their strengths and taking potshots at their weaknesses. But I just absolutely hate the blatant ignorance and flaming that comes from most genuine fanboys and will do my best to set the record straight no matter what console.
Don't feel bad. I play my Wii once, maybe twice a week tops, yet still get called a fanboy. It's inevitable in forums such as this. Everyone's got #1-an opinion and #2-a label for everyone else who doesn't share that opinion.
Nintendo can't produce the Wii fast enough to satisfy demand so why should they drop the price? Sony's been losing hundreds on each PS3 sold since day one and, for what you're getting, the launch and current prices remain more than fair.
you wanna talk about "mass-market price points", you better include these $60 prices for software.
of course Kotick, (head of a company that makes software), completely fails to even remotely talk about that and im sure it's not even a consideration. which is pretty comical, for him to sit there on his software-only-making high horse and tell console makers they need to lower their prices while that of games recently went up $10.
i've been saying this for almost two decades (even Cliff Bleszinski, who works for a software company feels the same way): it's not the hardware that's preventing true 'mass-market adoption', it's the overpriced software.
It's not his fault that software prices are high. That is still something hardware manufactuers could fix.
The Wii's software is cheaper because Nintendo makes a profit on the hardware and therefore doesn't need to gouge 3rd parties to make a little money. As long as people keep supporting their outdated business model the price of games will never come down.
it's not about blaming anyone for the high price of games per se, it's about the game industry reaching mass-market levels which means (as i stated before) "you better include these $60 prices for software" in the discussion.
what i mean is this; consoles sell. period. some better than others, of course, but consumers across a broad spectrum have proven that they are willing to enter the industry by investing in a console. they've already accepted the high software prices, peripherals, etc or they wouldn't have bought one.
that elusive mass-market consumer, however, has not and will not so long as the life blood of any console (games) remain prohibitively expensive.
im not saying you're point isn't valid, not in the slightest, and we could argue the economics of this particular topic upside down covered in feathers (or peanut butter, im not picky). the mass-market consumer, however, doesn't care. they don't want to hear the "how's" and the "why's".
they simply want the prices to come down and you have to start with the software. there's nothing "mass-market" about a $60, $50 or even a $40 video game.
@ Ozzman_79,
Yeah, I know it sounds like an obvious statement but I agree with Bluemanrule that the press release was more to announce the support of the Wii due to its "lower cost" this way he gets to make an announcement and send a little message to Sony and Microsoft to lower their prices otherwise future Activision projects will focus on the Wii while the PS3 and Xbox 360 become an extension of what they are doing.
Activision definitely has the position and power to make the heads of Sony and Microsoft to rethink their price strategies, I'm not saying they will but they will absolutely think about it.
Google his bio, you'll be surprised of his "wisdom".
Oh, i know. I get ya loud and clear. I just like razzing people that make more money in a day then i'll make in my life. Gives me a shallow sense of pride. Obviously the guy got to the position he did for a reason. It's just that if you take that part of the press release unto itself, it is pretty obvious.
I think the Wii is a good system for the Guitar Hero games since the Wii seems to do well with family oriented games or games with peripherals but it isn't the best console for the types of games that typically sell well on the 360. This could backfire as tradition has shown for the Wii unless it's by Nintendo or it comes with some peripheral it doesn't sell very well. I'd be interested to see how much of their focus really will shift. I see it as more of them making games just for the Wii in addition to all the HD games they are already releasing. Their games sell too well on the 360 for them to decrease resources for it.
Funny how he doesn't mention how cheaper software would improve sales or create an even better value.
I think the purpose of Kotick's statements were to express Activision intention making the Wii a primary focus. He needs to exploi.....take advantage of the Wii's installed base.
Cheaper consoles would sell more? Ya don't say? No wonder he's the CEO, with wisdom like that.