Nintendo Still On Top Despite Some Slowdown in Sales
If you’re looking for Nintendo to drop its price soon for the highly popular Wii gaming console or its DS handheld game system, in the words of Tony Soprano, “Fo-getta-bout It!”
“I don’t think that model [price cutting] is correct,” company president Satoru Iwata said.
The current U.S. price for the Wii console retails for around $250 (USD). Some big discount stores are selling them for about $25 less.
Nintendo is holding fast to current pricing despite the fact that sales of the DS looks to be starting to slow-down a bit, and at the same time its main competitor — Sony Playstation 3 — is beginning to drastically cut its pricing on their 20 G-byte consoles. This is expected to bring a gain for Sony, but Nintendo stays convinced it is only a temporary advantage because Wii is the console of choice for most of the world’s avid novice gamers.
“Our biggest fear is for people who have bought the DS to shut it away in a closet,” Iwata said. “We want people to use it in their everyday lives.
Concerning last year’s tremendous growth when compared to the slow down thus far experienced in the first quarter of 2008 Iwata added, “The speed last year was beyond our expectations.”
The company has readjusted and lowered their net profit expectations for 2008, but still remain confident that by the end of the last 2008 quarter, Nintendo will still be the reigning winner of the console wars.
Nintendo has plans to release several new games before the summer of 2008, including a racing game called the Mario Kart Wii. Also, the Wii Fit exercise game, which has sold extremely well throughout Japan, will also make its debut in the U.S. and European markets later this year.
Wait… wii main competitor is PS3… When did that happen?
Last I heard Xbox 360 was still way ahead in market share over the PS3
I could be wrong though
Shmoo
Shmoo: You are correct when just the consoles are taken into account. However, in the article we take into account both the console and game sales over last year and this first quarter. In that regard, Wii and Playstation 3 are the top two.
And keep in mind that in Japan, one of the biggest markets in gaming, XBox 360 is practically non-existent.
The main problem with the Wii, IMHO, is that the novelty factor is there and a lot of people love Wii Sports, the game that comes with it. But beyond that, there’s a massive amount of crapware out there. Very few choices for “hardcore” gamers, and even then, there are often control issues. There are enough “tentpole” releases to keep the interest high, but I find that the Wii was very popular with the family for about 2 weeks, and now it’s mostly collecting dust. It’s the console version of the DS, on which I play maybe 3 games a year.
Meanwhile, our PS3 gets regular use for PS2 and PS3 games, as well as a Blu-Ray player. Never mind the current PSP/PS3 compatability.
I like the specs on the XBox 360 and some of the exclusives look great, but I can’t justify purchasing a console with such a high failure rate.
The Wii’s novelty factor plus it’s “simplicity” (in design and software development) are factors that increased it wide acceptance. The “hardcore” gamer is relatively a limited gaming group now. The PS3 and 360 is fighting hard for that gaming sector and market.
Nintendo will offer software that will spur its general acceptance. The next big novelty application will probably be Wii-Fit.
With the economy slowing, Wii seem to have found a niche with the consumer and developers (though the games are lame with hardcore gamers, but fun with grandma).
Taken just by profitablity as a criteria then the Wii is very successful.
I am neither a fan of Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft consoles just observing ( and developing
).
Hmm… Really just wondering where you are getting your numbers, unless you including sales for the hand helds and their games as well.
All the numbers I’ve seen still have Xbox 360 selling way more games then PS3. This is from Ars technica, and NPD just to name a few…
Now with a bigger exclusive titles coming later this year then the 360, PS3 has a brighter future, but I don’t think they have reached that point yet.
Shmoo
piece of crap kiddie system, not geared toward next gen and has a remote control instead of a real game controller.
i’ll stick with PS3 im getting one as soon as metal gear 4 and final fantasy XIII are released. lets see those nintenjokes come out with anything as good, all their games are remakes and no original story. i mean how many times can you rehash the same mario and zelda story?
fanboys will say nintendo is all about the gameplay they don’t make stories or interative movies. I want adult stories, content and stunning visuals. yes i lose movies and literature and huge classical symphonic scores so games that do those things are all i want.
you can keep your smash bros crap.
anyway street fighter 4 when it gets a home console release will wipe the floor with that kiddie piece of shit.
of and nintendo and mirosoft chose obsolete formats like standard dvd and an add on hd dvd drive on the 360, lol.
the 360 is not true next gen or true HD, the PS3 is. they chose not to use current generation hardware and software, the xbox is a very unimaginative copy of the pc gaming out there.
now as for sonys excessive drm on the blu ray and the whole cd root kit thing, they suck for doing that crap.
So, Xbox 360 is not nex gen because it doesn’t have blu ray?
That has got to be the craziest thing I have every heard.
True HD requires two main things… 1080p and 5.1 sound. Both of which the 360 has.
The only advantage that Blu ray gives is bigger storage, but at the cost of drive speed. The load times on the PS3 are horrible. and Besides the only game I know of that required more then one disk on the 360 has been Lost Odyssey…
And if the hardware on the 360 is so bad, why does Capcom need to install 5 gigs of Devil May Cry 4 on the PS3 just so it can keep up with the 360 version’s frame rate?
The only reason I see for a PS3 is for a full featured blu ray player… and maybe for Metal Gear, but so far I have not been impressed with the game selections.
Shmoo
Firstly I don’t really think you can compare the Wii to the PS3 and xbox 360 simply because they don’t appeal to the same crowd and while you are not likely to own a PS3 and 360 the relatively low price of the Wii and the Virtual console means that owning a 360/PS3 and a Wii is very likely.
Another fact is that because the PS3 is a real bargain of a HD player there is some biasing in the numbers because why by a simple player when for the same price you can buy the same player built into a high powered computer that is in itself a media centre. no brainer. in fact I’m betting there are people with PS3’s that have no intention of using it as a gaming system.
As for the PS3 vs 360 an important fact is the hard drive. The 360 has an easily swappable modular hard drive but the PS3 has an integrated hard drive(yes you can self upgrade but bye bye warenty) and the other point is 360 has 120 gig where PS3 only 80. I’m wondering how much longer games are going to be distributed on laser disc media. With the rapid broad band penetration and the rapidly falling price on hard drives we are likely to see a major market shift away from this stupid physical distribution system we’re using and with the external hard drive the 360 is in the perfect place to dominate that market.
A have to agree with what [b]Shmoo[/b] said, except for one thing: not all 360’s are 1080p. Granted, all the ones on the shelves now are, but when they first came out, they were only 1080i using component video (no HDMI).
My other gripe about the 360 (besides the red ring of death: that’s a given) is the fact that they made the hard drive optional, forcing game makers to use a memory card as the standard for games. I just don’t get why the went backwards with that one, since a hard drive wasn’t optional on the original Xbox. As far as a required next gen drive, I think MS did it right: using a next gen drive (whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray), would have slowed load times down considerably. The only thing it really did for the Sony is, in the long run, make them money. I don’t think it really enhances anything for the user.
Shmoo: Yep, handhelds and their games are included since they were part of the scenario in my article.
Hey Mark:
But I think the idea MS used to make the 360 modular was brilliant. think about it. if they had come out with only an HD model then you would have had some of the same entry problems that the PS3 has in the price.
However now you can pick up an Xbox for just $30 more then a Wii… then later upgrade to a HD, and you not out any money, because the cost is the same… that is just cool, and makes the 360 much more approachable.
As for the ring of death, I think MS has done the right thing in being fast to repair or replace one in the event of. I seem to remember when the PS2 originally came out there where alot of problems with them at first too, and it was like pulling teeth to get Sony to do anything about it. in fact a friend of mine ended up having to get himself a new one, because he kept getting the runaround.
shmoo
sales are bound to come down since the u.s. is in the throes of a major recession, along with the oil crisis.
Shmoo:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the hard drive issue.
On another 360 vs. PS3 note, I just remembered the wireless networking thing. Sony put wireless networking into the PS3 (originally only on the higher end ones, but now it’s on all of them), but Microsoft requires you to buy a $99 add on, no matter which one you buy. When you throw that one in, if you’re looking for a next gen machine that also plays next gen DVD’s, then the PS3 is actually cheaper.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a PS fanboy, not in the least. In fact, if I’m choosing sides (and I have, at least with my wallet), I’m more of an Xbox guy. I’m just saying that I think Sony got some things right. I think they were wrong for using a next gen drive (especially one that didn’t have a finalized standard), but I think the hard drive and integrated wireless were good decisions.
the main reason for the Xbox to not go with a wireless out of the box, was because the wireless standards have been changing alot lately.
the big thing now is N which is much faster then the standard b and g that most people are still using.
The main Idea for the 360 was modular and upgradeablity, Although I do agree that the prices for somethings are a bit much… $99 for the current wireless, but again it gives options. I have mine plugged in Ethernet cable, which is faster anyway, so for me, a cheaper Xbox, without the extra expense of the wireless was great.
Now I would exactly call myself an Xbox fanboy, But I like to be well informed about my purchases, and I did quite a bit of research before choosing the Xbox.
In the end the only real thing that the PS3 had going for it was as a Blu Ray player, and promise of future titles. I might end up getting a PS3 in the next few months as I’m thinking of getting a Blu ray player, but as a pure gaming machine until they get a some of their big titles out it just won’t be worth it for me.
the Xbox had some great exclusive titles, the best online experience hands down, (for now… home looks interesting)and the price is right.
oh and I did have a Wii, until I got completely bored with it. It was great for Party games, but without the party it just not so fun single player, I couldn’t even get through zelda, though it was a fun game.
Shmoo
hey Shmoo “a lot” is two words.
and I’m behind you about the modular thing 100%. And it’s so ridiculously easy and cheap to run Cat-5 through your house to you xbox and the speed difference is undeniable.
The only place the Wireless would be nice is when you take your system elsewhere you may not have the luxury of a hard line.
I can speak from both sides of the fence. I have a 360, a PS3, and a Wii. I agree that the Wii is a novelty though there are some good games available for it, but, for the most part, all the ‘good’ games are made by Nintendo. 3rd party publishers just don’t seem to ‘get it’.
My PS3 has turned out to be a Blu-ray player for me. There’s just no selection of good games out for it that I can’t get for the 360. And I’m not into wasting my hard drive space with game data just to play the game (DMC4).
I also agree with Shmoo about the modular thing with 360. I have my 360 wired to the network because it’s faster, so I didn’t have to pay extra for wireless. In fact, since I have a high def switch box that includes ethernet switching, I have my PS3 hardwired too, so having wireless in the PS3 was unneeded for me, even though I had to pay for it.
In short, from my own experience, the 360 is a superior system still over the PS3 simply based on quality of games (Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Gears of War, just to name a few). PS3 exclusive games just aren’t that good…yet.