There is a profit difference between Nintendo and MS of just $6 on the hardware, and Xbox games are consistently priced at $60 versus $50 based on recent figures. With _one_ Xbox game sale, MS is already $4 up.

No-ones arguing that Wii isn’t very successful, but to say Xbox 360 isn’t is badly wrong.

No, the market agrees with me, considering wii has consistently outsold two consoles combined who represent the opposite values – high visual fidelity, complexity and multimedia capabilties, compared to size, ease of use and efficiency.

That number is rather meaningless too considering there’s nothing stopping Wii doing that, especially in comparison to lower development costs on Wii meaning more of that money is profit. Let’s also not forget the other consoles are very heavily front loaded, being based on the “blockbuster” model – sell heavily in a week to a month before completely dropping out of the charts, whilst Mario Kart Wii and Wii Fit achieve similar – if not go on to achieve better sales – over a longer period. This also has the added benefit of assuring a games value over a longer period, rather than subsequently suffering from many price drops and high second hand rates as demand and thus value quickly depreciates, something which some in the industry have been bitching about, despite being their own doing as a consequence of said blockbuster model.

I suggest you read these:

http://malstrom.50webs.com/malstromcasualarticledivision.htm

http://malstrom.50webs.com/theblueoceanarticles.htm

http://malstrom.50webs.com/disruptionchronicles.htm

All are based on the findings in these books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SIexi_qgq2gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Innovators+dilemma

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUsn9uIgkAUC

http://books.google.com/books?id=fKTllv6_O74C

You might think Playstation and Xbox are examples of a ‘dying breed’, but the market differs with you. On those platforms a single game can sell $300 million in one week.

Nintendo are doing very well with Wii, but both MS and Sony are doing well with their consoles too. And remember, Xbox is only half of MS’ gaming platform story.

For a start, the subjective nature of reviewing puts your metacritic basis off, along with the slew of baseless analysis that follows in the wake of uneducated forumers spewing bile about their competition. Then there’s the fact that many games on Wii and DS have been non traditional – 360 is heavy with exactly the kind of male orientated action, “mature” titles that have sat well for years, compared to titles credited with expanding the gaming market like Brain Training that have garnered less popularity amongst critics, seemingly precisely because it isn’t the traditional slew of FPS and similar titles that so dominate the other 2 platforms.

Far more telling of any platform is the comparative range of software that can be sold, upon which Wii and DS have generally shown themselves to be ahead of the others. To such a degree that this is a problem Microsoft specifically set up studios and set about buying exclusives so as to try and capture games outside of the usual lot.

And Alex, there is little evidence to believe the Xbox business is genuinely profitable. The hardware makes such a loss, even with software licensing it doesn’t really make up for it. Compare that to where Nintendo makes profit on both hardware AND software (the comparative cost of development is far lower), it doesn’t shape up well.

The approach that boith Sony and Microsoft have taken with their respective consoles are exampels of a dying breed. Hardware that doesn’t make a profit thanks to high investment in visual technology, with development budgets of games that similarly suffer from severe increases in cost to the point where risk is barely viable, games are produced that fit into the same mould and thus audience appeal as before, it doesn’t look good for the Xbox and Playstation brand.

Let’s also not forget that attach rates are also an erroneous figure. The Gamecube at the end of its life cycle had an attach rate of 10:1 in the favour of software, yet it was still considered a failure. Why? The range of software that sold was considered narrower, and the actual install base of the system wasn’t seen as big enough to be viable for many projects, from large to small.

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/11/army-videogame-recruitment

‘Hordes of tech journalists and pasty game-fans watched in awe at the P.T. Barnum spectacle, before claiming their free soft-drink and shuffling back inside the convention centre where Tony Hawk was about to do a stunt-skateboard demo. The game being advertised, Full Spectrum Warrior, another previously developed Army-funded title) the piece has Lt. Col. Gary Stephens explaining that videogames have a central role as training aids in the modern army. His unit is dedicated to keeping an eye on the commercial game sector and identifying technology that might be useful for military training. Reassuringly, Lt. Col. Stephens goes on to state that, “We don’t have the intent or capability to be a commercial game house.”‘

See who funds America’s Army.

US taxpayers

So….. Sony are training an army of battle-hardened supermen? What exactly does that mean?

See who funds America’s Army.

We’ve only just discussed criteria for success. If profit is one of them, only Nintendo succeeded.

Absolutely. Where did I say Nintendo weren’t the ones making the big bucks? I’m pretty sure I said more than once that Microsoft would be making another loss

I personally admire Nintendo’s escape from violence, which hardens the young generation for all sorts of ulterior motives.

“ulterior motives”

So….. Sony are training an army of battle-hardened supermen? What exactly does that mean?

Is shooting bullets at antelopes fun (a top Microsoft exec got arrested for doing this)? If it’s fun, does it make it OK?

I’ve never shot at an antelope. I’ve played games though. I’m not sure they’re the same thing.

‘Goodness’ of games is subjective in some people’s mind.

Taking things on a purely moral ground, on one individual’s moral basis, is worthless to all. Would you rank Barney & Friends ahead of The Godfather due to the violence in the latter? Elmo in Grouchland ahead of Star Wars? The Lion King 3 ahead of Schindler’s List?

Wii exclusive.

Enjoy.

Which is lovely for them. But it doesn’t prevent the majority of the games being shit. That’s like claiming “Who cares about arthouse cinema, people want to watch Space Chimps” as an argument that the latter is better.

We’ve only just discussed criteria for success. If profit is one of them, only Nintendo succeeded. I personally admire Nintendo’s escape from violence, which hardens the young generation for all sorts of ulterior motives.

Is shooting bullets at antelopes fun (a top Microsoft exec got arrested for doing this)? If it’s fun, does it make it OK?

‘Goodness’ of games is subjective in some people’s mind.

Since you INSIST on embarrassing yourself, Roy, since you pushed and pushed, then here you go.

Metacritic.com produces aggregate scores across a large number of review sources, for assorted types of media. The metacritic average scores for all three systems show the following number of titles with scores of 90/100 or higher (including download-only titles, including multi-format games):

Wii: 8
PS3: 10
360: 18

if you increase the search scope to 85/100, the following numbers emerge:
Wii: 16
PS3: 39
360: 55

You can compare the numbers to the other main aggregation site, and the same patterns will be shown. Only by willfully going against reality can these numbers mean anything other than what I’ve said – that the 360 has the largest selection of great games, like it or not.

Really Roy, you’re totally out of your depth on this. Don’t claim to know about games, because it’s pretty clear you don’t.

The 360 has earnt its reputation as the system with the widest selection of great games of this generation. Sorry, but it’s true.