The Death of Handheld gaming from console makers?

[Pr0d1gy]

I'm just curious why it is that you think the Wii U is going to set the world on fire? Faith? Cause what we've seen so far is absolutely nothing impressive.

Probability based on mathematical data that is readily available to anyone.

 

[BD2003]

Probability based on mathematical data that is readily available to anyone.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Your math is meaningless.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Your math is meaningless.

Yeah go tell Bill Gates that.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Yeah go tell Bill Gates that.

Huh?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Huh?

Bill knows what you guys don't and that is the fact that past performance is the best predictor of future results. Windows has been the best selling OS for decades now, and expects to continue that trend into the future. The same thing applies to Nintendo with regard to console sales. Just because you guys don't want it to be true does not mean it will not be. I have based my point on standing and past results that Nintendo is most likely to sell the most consoles in the next generation.

It is a logical argument based on mathematical data and the logical conclusions one would have to draw from said data. I apologize that it collides with your agenda but it will happen. The Wii U will come out before, or near, the time the other consoles release and it will be at a much better price point and will have the most popular exclusives at launch as usual. This will propel it far ahead of the other console makers and they will struggle to catch up.

What I am not discounting is that MS or Sony could overtake the Nintendo console, EVENTUALLY, in this next generation but it will not happen until at least 2016-2017 at the earliest. The mass of negative experiences with the current consoles from MS and Sony could stop this from ever happening, which is the only guess I am making in this entire argument.

 

[BD2003]

If what you're saying was truly the case, Sony would have sold the most consoles this gen, because the PS1 and PS2 sold the most in the last two generations.

But that didn't happen, so either your argument is total bullshit, or you're drawing the wrong conclusions.

Sorry if that conflicts with your agenda.

 

[xboxist]

Yeah but nobody cares what you think and nobody ever has.

Yeah you're real tough on an internet forum, did you hear that one at school today?

This is delicious. You insult me, a person you don't know nor have you ever had any discussion with. And that is what you say to my response? Did you mean to say that to yourself? Whatever, troll away. Maybe someone won't piss in your Cheerios today and life won't suck quite so much for you.

 

[purbeast0]

If what you're saying was truly the case, Sony would have sold the most consoles this gen, because the PS1 and PS2 sold the most in the last two generations.

But that didn't happen, so either your argument is total bullshit, or you're drawing the wrong conclusions.

Sorry if that conflicts with your agenda.

or how about how "good" the N64 and Gamecube did.

Wii should have failed compared to PS3 based on that past "mathematical data".

i'm also sure the price of the Wii being significantly lower than the other 2 major consoles didn't have anything to do with sales numbers.

 

[thespyder]

My phone has a touch screen only. My DS Lite has buttons. Buttons > no buttons.

I'll take a DS over a phone ANY day for real gaming.

I have a DS and a PSP and an Android phone. Given the choices for Mobile gaming, I repeatedly play my DS games and my PSP games even if I have finished them multiple times, for precisely this reason. Buttons = more options and better games than what is available for a touch screen game.

With that having been said, i won't buy a Vita. Too expensive and no games that compel me to purchase.

 

[Sulaco]

If what you're saying was truly the case, Sony would have sold the most consoles this gen, because the PS1 and PS2 sold the most in the last two generations.

But that didn't happen, so either your argument is total bullshit, or you're drawing the wrong conclusions.

Sorry if that conflicts with your agenda.

This is actually a really good point.

 

[thespyder]

Bill knows what you guys don't and that is the fact that past performance is the best predictor of future results. Windows has been the best selling OS for decades now, and expects to continue that trend into the future. The same thing applies to Nintendo with regard to console sales. Just because you guys don't want it to be true does not mean it will not be. I have based my point on standing and past results that Nintendo is most likely to sell the most consoles in the next generation.

It is a logical argument based on mathematical data and the logical conclusions one would have to draw from said data. I apologize that it collides with your agenda but it will happen. The Wii U will come out before, or near, the time the other consoles release and it will be at a much better price point and will have the most popular exclusives at launch as usual. This will propel it far ahead of the other console makers and they will struggle to catch up.

What I am not discounting is that MS or Sony could overtake the Nintendo console, EVENTUALLY, in this next generation but it will not happen until at least 2016-2017 at the earliest. The mass of negative experiences with the current consoles from MS and Sony could stop this from ever happening, which is the only guess I am making in this entire argument.

Your argument is good as far as it goes. But…

Windows is the best selling OS, not because it is the best OS. Not by a long chalk. But because Microsoft invested so heavily in getting it out there and ensuring that an entire generation of hardware ran nothing BUT Windows. Windows Vista, for instance was HORRIBLE. And Windows 8 is beginning to look almost as bad for all of its holes. It is the most name recognized, certainly, but far from the best. And I fully expect it to lose some ground if it keeps on producing sub-standard products like Vista and Win8.

But to your point, Wii U MAY come out same or similar time frame, but that fact alone will not dictate its dominance over the other consoles. Hardware and software capabilities in comparison to the other consoles, plus game support also factor in heavily into the equation. And so just because it has the most exclusives doesn’t mean that any of them are any good (i.e. it doesn’t follow that just because it is exclusive, it is better than a non-exclusive, nor that people will buy it on its exclusivity alone). And not even price is a guaranteed home run in this arena. The console could be free, but if it doesn’t have the robust title support and backwards compatibility (both things that Sony excels at), no one will buy it.

And even if the Wii U does start out on top, Both Sony and MS are highly motivated to pump out more and varied titles than the Wii U will ever have. Current problems with the current generation of console will not dampen the desire to purchase the veritable plethora of games that will populate the Sony and MS consoles. Any Wii-U dominance will be very short lived indeed.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Bill knows what you guys don't and that is the fact that past performance is the best predictor of future results. Windows has been the best selling OS for decades now, and expects to continue that trend into the future.

Last I looked, Bill hasn't had much to do with MS' daily ongoings for a while now. That's up to Ballmer.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Sorry if that conflicts with your agenda.

This is not an agenda issue at all. Nintendo has released 5 major home consoles and 3 of them lead their generation in sales. Obviously there was a dip when the Playstation came out but Sony has proven inept at staying current whilst Nintendo adapted, survived, and accelled. With the Wii putting them back on top, by a LARGE margin, they have a 60% success rate over a span of 5 generations, which makes them most likely to create the top selling platform for the next generation.

Fuck for a bunch of smart people on a computer forum you sure seem to struggle with mathematics and simple logic.

 

[BD2003]

This is not an agenda issue at all. Nintendo has released 5 major home consoles and 3 of them lead their generation in sales. Obviously there was a dip when the Playstation came out but Sony has proven inept at staying current whilst Nintendo adapted, survived, and accelled. With the Wii putting them back on top, by a LARGE margin, they have a 60% success rate over a span of 5 generations, which makes them most likely to create the top selling platform for the next generation.

Fuck for a bunch of smart people on a computer forum you sure seem to struggle with mathematics and simple logic.

Your superiority complex is adorable.

 

[purbeast0]

This is not an agenda issue at all. Nintendo has released 5 major home consoles and 3 of them lead their generation in sales. Obviously there was a dip when the Playstation came out but Sony has proven inept at staying current whilst Nintendo adapted, survived, and accelled. With the Wii putting them back on top, by a LARGE margin, they have a 60% success rate over a span of 5 generations, which makes them most likely to create the top selling platform for the next generation.

Fuck for a bunch of smart people on a computer forum you sure seem to struggle with mathematics and simple logic.

Sony has lead their generation in the last 2/3 gens, so they have a higher percentage of 66%.

by your logic they should lead when the PS4 comes out, since they have a higher percentage leading rate, and have lade in 2 out of the last 3 gens.

P.S. lumping NES and SNES into this whole talk to make nintendo's numbers higher is amusing.

 

[dagamer34]

The iPhone didn't kill handheld gaming, mobile Internet did. The big problem is that every piece of entertainment on the go is competing with your time, and when you can check Facebook, Twitter, browse the web, etc... all of a sudden that bus ride doesn't require you to have a mobile handheld in order to pass the time.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

I don't know.
Somewhat the case, yes.

I don't game on my phone at all any more due to games having too many game-breaking, and serious negative affect on overall phone performance.
Then again, android has way too many buggy apps compared to iphone anyway.

I haven't gamed on my phone since December.
Fired up game. Played for 5min. Game freezes. Screen goes black after a couple minutes. Tried turning it off, leaving it off for some time, turning it back on. Splash load screen thing whatever, then black screen again. Take battery out, wait hours & try again. Same.
Phone was like this for 2 days before reformat/reset/reinstall/whatever. Haven't put any games on it since.

Only really use social media apps now & they are broken at times too.

 

[thespyder]

This is not an agenda issue at all. Nintendo has released 5 major home consoles and 3 of them lead their generation in sales. Obviously there was a dip when the Playstation came out but Sony has proven inept at staying current whilst Nintendo adapted, survived, and accelled. With the Wii putting them back on top, by a LARGE margin, they have a 60% success rate over a span of 5 generations, which makes them most likely to create the top selling platform for the next generation.

Fuck for a bunch of smart people on a computer forum you sure seem to struggle with mathematics and simple logic.

Our problem isn't with Math. It is with YOUR math. Tell me, what alternate universe do you come from? Maybe that is the reason?

when the Game cube came out, Nintendo was not even in the top two and by a LARGE Margin. The fact that the Wii came out with such gangbusters was fluke more than anything else. They happened to hit the right market, which was largely un-tapped by the other two consoles. You can bet that they won't make that mistake again. And considering that it only topped out because it was 3-4 years newer than the other consoles, they had ability to adapt in ways that the existing consoles didn't.

You can look at top line figures and say X number of generations and Y number of wins, but these are no where near where the true battles are fought. And making suppositions based on the types of broad statistics you mention here is just insane.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

We shall see. Nintendo has a long history of getting it right. Thanks for the namecalling and other stupidity though, quality.

 

[thespyder]

We shall see. Nintendo has a long history of getting it right. Thanks for the namecalling and other stupidity though, quality.

We shall see indeed. Sony has a long history of getting it right and of having the most titles and providing a good solid platform overall. They have a record of innovation (Including Blu-ray in their core system) and being a more solid overall platform for all gamers.

Nintendo has a record for being a family friendly platform and having a lot of kiddie titles as exclusives.

Xbox has Microsoft behind it. Nuff said.

I would say that all three platforms have a decent pedigree. It could go any way.

And using NES/SNES as examples of dominance, given that they really didn't have any competitors at the time is laughable. But then "Obviously there was a dip when the Playstation came out". In other words, as soon as there was ANY competition what so ever, they crumbled.

and no one was calling you any names. I was merely inquiring why you were looking down on all of us with scorn and disdain when your arguments were the ones that didn't add up.

Fuck for a bunch of smart people on a computer forum you sure seem to struggle with mathematics and simple logic.

See?

 

[reallyscrued]

Ah, so much bickering. This is exciting!

Makes me feel like I'm back in the 16 bit era. Sony does what Nintendon't, amirite?

Anyway, I think you all are wrong. This mentality of 'winning' a console generation isn't as cut and dry anymore. You are all basing your criteria on the idea that multiple console manufacturers can't coexist...why is that? Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all just do what they do best without one of them having to go out of business?

What quantifies 'winning' the console war for a generation anyway? Wasn't it sales?

It's easy to spot a fanboy. A fanboy will say the N64 won the 5th generation because it didn't have the massive amounts of shovelware the PS1 did even though it sold less...fast forward 10 years and now they say the Wii has won exactly because it sold more...except it's got tons of shovelware.

A Sony fan will say the PS2 won the 6th gen because it sold the most, but it will also say the PS3 won the current gen even though it sold the least.

Which is it people?

I'll tell you what it is. They are all winners. As long as they live to fight another day, release more software and hardware, they are all businesses that have found a way to work. They might bleed money here and win big there, just as any business will do but no one screams BURGER KING IS THE TRUE FAST FOOD GIANT AND ALL OTHERS WILL CRUMBLE as quick as a videogamer will. It's childish really.


Things have changed SO much. Look at the freaking numbers.

200 million consoles have been sold, that's a huge market.

Maybe there's no such thing as 'winning' anymore, there's just 'not losing'.

 

[Tom]

Gamecube was a good product and should have done better, but I think its sales were hurt more by the DS than the PS2. Everybody and her cousin got a DS and that replaced a lot of Gamecubes on Christmas lists.

There was no diminshment in desire for Nintendo's core products, Mario, Zelda, et al.

 

[A5]

Ah, so much bickering. This is exciting!

Makes me feel like I'm back in the 16 bit era. Sony does what Nintendon't, amirite?

Anyway, I think you all are wrong. This mentality of 'winning' a console generation isn't as cut and dry anymore. You are all basing your criteria on the idea that multiple console manufacturers can't coexist...why is that? Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all just do what they do best without one of them having to go out of business?

What quantifies 'winning' the console war for a generation anyway? Wasn't it sales?

It's easy to spot a fanboy. A fanboy will say the N64 won the 5th generation because it didn't have the massive amounts of shovelware the PS1 did even though it sold less...fast forward 10 years and now they say the Wii has won exactly because it sold more...except it's got tons of shovelware.

A Sony fan will say the PS2 won the 6th gen because it sold the most, but it will also say the PS3 won the current gen even though it sold the least.

Which is it people?

I'll tell you what it is. They are all winners. As long as they live to fight another day, release more software and hardware, they are all businesses that have found a way to work. They might bleed money here and win big there, just as any business will do but no one screams BURGER KING IS THE TRUE FAST FOOD GIANT AND ALL OTHERS WILL CRUMBLE as quick as a videogamer will. It's childish really.


Things have changed SO much. Look at the freaking numbers.

200 million consoles have been sold, that's a huge market.

Maybe there's no such thing as 'winning' anymore, there's just 'not losing'.

This. No one is going to "win" - the WiiU will sell fine and Nintendo will keep making hardware. The next systems from Sony and Microsoft will sell just fine as well, and this time it may not even take 4 years for them to break even, if the low-risk hardware rumors are true.

 

[BD2003]

Ah, so much bickering. This is exciting!

Makes me feel like I'm back in the 16 bit era. Sony does what Nintendon't, amirite?

Anyway, I think you all are wrong. This mentality of 'winning' a console generation isn't as cut and dry anymore. You are all basing your criteria on the idea that multiple console manufacturers can't coexist...why is that? Why can't Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all just do what they do best without one of them having to go out of business?

What quantifies 'winning' the console war for a generation anyway? Wasn't it sales?

It's easy to spot a fanboy. A fanboy will say the N64 won the 5th generation because it didn't have the massive amounts of shovelware the PS1 did even though it sold less...fast forward 10 years and now they say the Wii has won exactly because it sold more...except it's got tons of shovelware.

A Sony fan will say the PS2 won the 6th gen because it sold the most, but it will also say the PS3 won the current gen even though it sold the least.

Which is it people?

I'll tell you what it is. They are all winners. As long as they live to fight another day, release more software and hardware, they are all businesses that have found a way to work. They might bleed money here and win big there, just as any business will do but no one screams BURGER KING IS THE TRUE FAST FOOD GIANT AND ALL OTHERS WILL CRUMBLE as quick as a videogamer will. It's childish really.


Things have changed SO much. Look at the freaking numbers.

200 million consoles have been sold, that's a huge market.

Maybe there's no such thing as 'winning' anymore, there's just 'not losing'.

But then that's the end of the conversation. Where's the fun in that?

It doesn't matter if all do fine, all are incredible, or some are unmitigated disasters. It's just something to talk about.

You're not saying anything that everyone doesn't know already.

 

[NoStateofMind]

More evidence:

http://www.bgr.com/2012/06/08/mobile-gaming-handheld-devices-niche/

Handheld Gaming Devices in Downward Spiral to Niche Status Thanks to Tablets and Mobile Devices

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. – June 7, 2012

​Over 38 million handheld gaming devices from Sony and Nintendo are expected to ship in 2013 –a maximum that is significantly lower than the previous peak of 47 million units in 2008. Unit shipments following 2013 are expected to decline slightly, but dedicated handheld gaming devices are a sustainable niche, with forecasts relatively flat through 2017. Smartphone and tablet use for gaming continues to expand, making the mobile gaming market an increasingly important companion to dedicated handheld gaming.

Senior analyst Michael Inouye comments, “Mobile devices will compete with dedicated handheld gaming devices, but select consumer segments like core gamers and those individuals who do not want or have a smartphone or tablet will still provide some demand. The addition of mobile gaming is not necessarily a zero sum situation; in fact, many feel there is plenty of room in the gaming market for both portable and mobile gaming.”

Following an initially strong 1Q 2011 launch, Nintendo’s 3DS experienced a far weaker second quarter, prompting the company to dramatically lower the price of the handheld (from ~$249 to ~$170). The lower price, with additional titles, spurred sales to over 15 million through the 2011 calendar year. In late 2011, Sony launched the Vita in Japan with a wider launch in February 2012 to decent sales, although the price might prove an issue for Sony as well, despite significantly more robust hardware.

Inouye adds, “The mobile and tablet markets have increased consumers’ price sensitivity. First party developers and key game franchises will be vital cogs for the industry in the future, since hardware alone is not going to cut it given the shorter upgrade cycles for mobile devices.” Recent announcements at E3 from Nintendo and Microsoft, coupled with past mobile-centric initiatives by Sony, make clear that mobile experiences will be integrated into “dedicated” gaming experiences (both console and portable).

The question is not if but when will Smartphones dominate the handheld gaming market. My guess? Five years or less.