Why The Relative Power of the Wii U Isn't A Big Deal

A quick look at the differences between the Wii U's specs and the PS4's specs shows something that's been hinted at for a while: The Wii U is going to be way behind the next generation of hardware. Even just the processor and RAM tells the story:

Wii U's CPU: Three cores
PS4's CPU: Eight cores

Wii U's RAM: 2 GB (1 GB usable for games)
PS4's RAM: 8 GB (almost all of it usable by games)

So this means the Wii U is doomed, right? Well, slow your roll. It certainly means that the Wii U isn't going to get the hot third-party releases as the console's life span rolls on, but that doesn't necessarily mean a gloom-and-doom outlook for the system in general.

More Next-Gen Worries: Always-On Kinect! No Downwards Compatibility!

The XBox 720 and Playstation 4 keep looking worse and worse.

EA is reporting that it's highly unlikely that the next Microsoft and Sony consoles will be downwards compatible. This goes along with another report that the 720 will require Kinect to be on all the time and games to be installed to the hard drive.

Here's why all three are Bad Ideas.

Sony and Microsoft Don't Want Used Games

Begun, the used game war has.

According to the article above, Microsoft is apparently going to force systems to use a persistent Internet connection in order to block used game sales. Sony is apparently planning on using RFID chips on the discs for the same reason. That leaves the Wii U as the only next-gen console that will allow used game sales.

So why do Sony and Microsoft want to do this? What's the driving force, and will it be a successful strategy? Let's examine it.

"Why are they doing this?"

First, take a look at this. These are the top selling games for the XBox 360 and their publishers.

1. Kinect Adventures - Microsoft
2. Call of Duty: Black Ops - Activision
3. Halo 3 11 million - Microsoft
4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Activision
5. Skyrim - Bethesda
6. Gears of War- Microsoft
7. Gears of War 2 - Microsoft
8. Halo: Reach - Microsoft
9. Grand Theft Auto IV - Rockstar Games
10. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Activision

Now, here are the best selling games for the Playstation 3 and their publishers.

1. Gran Turismo 5 - Sony
2. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue - Sony
3. God of War III - Sony
4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Activision
5. Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception -  Sony
6. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves - Sony
7. MotorStorm - Sony
8. Call of Duty: Black Ops - Activision
9. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - Konami
10. LittleBigPlanet - Sony

Compare this to the best selling games for the Wii and their publishers.

1. Wii Sports - Nintendo
2. Mario Kart Wii - Nintendo
3. Wii Sports Resor - Nintendo
4. Wii Play - Nintendo
5. New Super Mario Bros. Wii - Nintendo
6. Wii Fit - Nintendo
7. Wii Fit Plus - Nintendo
8. Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Nintendo
9. Super Mario Galaxy - Nintendo
10. Wii Party - Nintendo

All right, so what's the point? Well, Nintendo isn't pushing for this as hard as Sony and Microsoft are. Nintendo makes all of their best-selling games in-house. Five of the top-ten best-selling games on the 360 aren't made by Microsoft, and four of the top-ten best-selling games on the PS3 aren't made by Sony.

The point? Third parties exert a huge influence on Microsoft and Sony. A system is only as good as the games that are on it, and third parties make up a large part of the quality games on both systems.

"So what?"

Sony and Microsoft make money off of the sales of their console, from any in-house games created and sold, and also from the licensing fees generated by developers looking to make games for their console. They also have their own online services (Live for Microsoft, Playstation Plus for Sony) that generate revenue as well.

So why are Sony and Microsoft so hell-bent on stopping used games? Of course, every time a used game is sold, the only one who gets any money from the transaction is the seller, whether that's Gamestop or a private seller. There's also the idea that fewer used games might mean the purchase of more new games. But with the different revenue streams coming in, why would Sony and Microsoft care?

Now let's look at a typical third party, like EA or Activision. How many revenue streams do they have? Well, they make money whenever someone buys one of their games new. They make money from microtransactions within those games, and subscription fees for those games. Everything revolves around their games and getting them in the hands of the users.

You can't always count on users to purchase DLC. Some people won't play a game if there's a subscription fee. And, finally, if someone purchases a game used, the company who made it doesn't get one red cent.

So, let's say that little Johnny Gamer decides to buy the Call of Duty games a few years after they come out. He goes to Gamestop, buys a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 and doesn't buy any DLC. He may play the game for a year or more, and he hasn't paid Activision a thing for the privilege. This is precisely what has companies like Activision and EA so worked up.

"So you're saying this blocking used games is a good solution then?"

Oh, God no. This is like applying makeup with a shotgun: It's overkill for a very small problem that's going to leave someone with their face red.

"Why are you saying this is a small problem? You just laid out the reasons why Activision and EA don't make any money from used games."

In the short term, used games are indeed an issue for them. After all, if someone is buying your game used, that's a game that they're not buying new. However, that logic only works if you're subscribing to the theory that the customer would have bought the game whether or not it was new or used.

Let's go back to little Johnny Gamer. He's not sure if he's going to enjoy playing Modern Warfare 3, although he's interested. Instead of buying Modern Warfare 3, he has purchased a used copy of MW2 instead. If he finds that he likes it, he;s far more likely to buy a new copy of a different game in the series. If he doesn't like it, he hasn't wasted $60.

As the above example shows, Activision made no money from the used copy of Modern Warfare 2, but they are now far closer to making money from a new sale of Modern Warfare 3 or any future games in the series that Johnny Gamer has purchased. Yes, in the short term, they didn't make money directly, but in the long term they have possibly gained a customer.

"Yes, but only possibly."

Correct. But, here's the question: Is the average consumer going to drop $60 on something that is not a known commodity?

If I've never played an Elder Scrolls game, but people are telling me that Skyrim is great, am I going to rush out and buy Skyrim for $60? Maybe. Maybe not. More than likely I won't, because I don't know what I'm buying. Will I drop $40 on it? Maybe. I'm more likely to, anyway, because I know more about what I'm buying.

It's the same reason that game companies make demos of their games. It's a little more work, but it enables the player to find out what the game is like first, then decide if they want it.

"What about services like Steam? There are no used games on Steam, and yet it's thriving."

Correct. Steam also offers deep discounts and free weekends. They'll sell $60 games for $30, give away copies of Portal, and have massive sales that make wallets weep because the deals are just that good.

Do you foresee Sony or Microsoft doing that? Remember, they're locking out used games solely to increase profit. Would they offer their games for cheap if that's their goal? It's unlikely.

"Well, what about-"

And imagine when little Johnny Gamer buys a PS4, buys a game he doesn't like and tries to trade it in. "Sorry, kid, no trade-ins on PS4 games." How is that going to play out?

"Well, maybe-"

And let's say that Microsoft or Sony charge an activation fee for used games. How is that going to work? You're going to pay $30 for a used game, then pay another $5 just for the privilege of being able to play it on your system? Good luck explaining that to the average consumer without having them slam the game down on the counter and storm off.

"OK, then how would you fix this problem?"

You have two options. One would be to offer this sort of system while offering the deep, deep discounts that Steam offers. It's worked really well for Valve.

So, do you think Microsoft and Sony are going to be willing to offer those discounts? Sony might. Microsoft still sells their Office program for $150, at least. Granted, it’s a different division of the company that set that pricing, but the corporate culture is tough to break.

The other option is what Nintendo is doing with their Club Nintendo program. When you buy a new game from Nintendo, you can get points on your Club Nintendo account, which you can redeem for special gifts or even free games. It’s not the most robust system, but it works. Whenever I buy a Nintendo game, I buy new instead of used precisely so I can get points on Club Nintendo. Square Enix does a similar system, and it seems to have worked out for them so far too. With that system, you’re rewarding people for buying new games, while not punishing people for buying used.

Yet, that requires having some trust and faith in your audience. By blocking used games entirely, Sony and Microsoft are demonstrating that they have none.

“What could happen if Sony and Microsoft do this?”

Used games make more money than new games for companies like Gamestop and Best Buy. It's simple economics.

Gamestop is already angry over this development. Millions of gamers go to Gamestop and listen to the advice of the people behind the counter, even though they don’t always know what they’re talking about. The reps mostly get their directives from corporate, which determines what the Gamestop reps say and do.

Used games are a large, large piece of their revenue. Their shelf space is mostly devoted to it. If Nintendo is the only company that allows used games, how much shelf space will Sony and Microsoft get? How much will Nintendo get?

Best Buy is dipping their toes into the used game arena. Already, they have lots of shelf space reserved specifically for used games, so what are they going to put there instead? How about the used games from a company that’s not blocking off used games?

If all goes the way it appears to be going, Sony and Microsoft will be handing this generation over to Nintendo easily. They won’t have shelf space in the most prime locations, they won’t have gamers on their side and they won’t succeed.

Sounds like a plan to me!

_______

There are times when gaming companies will do things that are not in the consumer’s best interest. Think of systems like the PSPGo, or releasing a competing online store just to get that sweet, sweet gaming cash that Steam rakes in, or nickel-and-diming customers with immersion-breaking DLC. When they do these things, they usually get swatted down by the consumers who see right through it.

Here’s hoping that consumers rebel against this arrangement by Sony and Microsoft. If they don’t, we could be on the cusp of another devastating industry-wide crash. Fingers crossed.

6 Complaints About the Wii U (And Why They're Wrong)

Nintendo is discussing the Wii U lately, and the hardcore gamers are scoffing at it. They're scoffing at the rumored system specs, Nintendo's declining sales and the "gimmicky" tablet controller. You name it, they're scoffing at it.

Let's sum up what the naysayers are saying:

"The Wii U is only going to be a little more powerful than current-gen systems, so it's going to be obsolete right away. No one's going to want a system with just one tablet controller, and they're going to end up getting trounced and having to go third-party. And good riddance! Their games are great, but their hardware is garbage."

Let's go one-by-one and see if we can't defuse this.

5 Complaints About the Wii (And Why They're Wrong)

Today we're deconstructing the criticism of the Wii. We've defended the Wii in the past, but we'll do it again because a lot of this bears repeating. Here's a sample conglomerate of all the current Wii criticism:

"The Wii was the most underpowered system, and since Nintendo wimped out on system specs all they got were the casual users. Now that the casuals have all moved to smartphones and tablets, no one is buying their system and no hardcore gamers will ever buy Nintendo products again because Nintendo embraced the casuals."

Let's go through these criticisms one by one.

Mega Man X2! Wii Virtual Console! EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!

ESRB UPDATE! MEGA MAN X2!

Is it OK if I pee myself a little bit? Just a little.

Why am I so excited about this? Well, Mega Man X2 uses the Super FX chip. The only major games missing from the VC (aside from Earthbound) are games using that chip, like StarFox, Super Mario World 2, etc.

This could be it! This could be the beginning of the last major influx of Virtual Console releases. I hope so.

Why Wii Shovelware Doesn't Matter

Here's an article from Wired.  This is my favorite passage, and I have nothing to add to it:

And why do we think that consumers can't figure it out? Why do videogames have to be the one product for which we believe they need to have their hands held? I loved He-Man as a kid. There were all kinds of crappy knock-off action figures in the cereal aisle at the supermarket for $1. Did anybody buy them for me? No. They knew what the real deal was and paid more for it.

Go into a Walgreens and look by the cash register. See the giant dump bin of $2 DVD movies? These don't stop anybody from buying the films they really want to see at full price at Virgin Megastore across the street.

Metroid Prime Trilogy Not Selling?

There's a bit of controversy that Nintendo has stopped selling the Metroid Prime Trilogy for the Wii. Of course, the Wii-haters are loving this. "Hardcore gamers don't use the Wii! It's doomed! DOOOOOOMED!" while they maniacally cackle and wait for it to die. Here's a list of other games that Nintendo has stopped selling:

• Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
• Donkey Kong Barrel Blast
• Endless Ocean
• Excitebots: Trick Racing
• Excite Truck
• Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
• Mario Strikers Charged
• Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
• New Play Control! Pikmin
• Wario Land: Shake It!
• Wario Ware: Smooth Moves
• Wii Fit
• Wii Music

Source

Some may call this troubling news. Nintendo is abandoning games! What's happening? Even RawmeatCowboy, the leader of the GoNintendo clan, offers this up: "I still don't see how this fits into a longtail strategy." Should we be afraid? Is this a really big deal?


First, no other gaming company gets as much scrutiny as Nintendo. If Nintendo burps, everyone runs to smell it, and then they try and analyze what Nintendo had for lunch and how it will affect them next year and the effect their lunch will have on other people's lunch choices. It's a tangled analogy, but I think you get the idea: Nintendo gets overanalyzed. They're analyzed to death when they're successful, they're analyzed when they're NOT successful, they're analyzed by their fans and analyzed by their haters as well. With this level of scrutiny, when Nintendo decides not to ship copies of a certain game, in this case the Metroid Prime Trilogy, everyone hears about it.

Compare this to Sony. In the last generation, how long did they ship copies of the original Ratchet & Clank? How about Dark Cloud or Ico? What about Square? Did they keep shipping Final Fantasy X? Who knows? We don't really know the answer, because Sony doesn't get scrutinized like Nintendo does. Certainly, they didn't keep shipping them for a long amount of time, especially a game that flopped initially like Ico. They may have sold well, but not enough to keep on pushing copies out the door indefinitely. No company does that.

Second, the Metroid Prime Trilogy is a compilation. No matter how good the compilation, you're not going to sell that many copies of it, because it's not a new game. The audience of a compilation is limited to people who bought the game and want to buy it again, people who heard of the game but haven't bought it, or only played one game out of the compilation and want to play the rest. In the case of Metroid Prime, it sold a little over a million copies, which is respectable. After the inital sales batch, it went to the used game bins, where it could be purchased for as little as $6. It's sequel could be purchased for $12. If you hadn't purchased either game the first time around, there was probably a really good reason for it.

Third, unlike normal compilations, the Metroid Prime Trilogy is expensive to make. It's not a normal plastic case with a crappy manual. It's a metal tin surrounded by another plastic sleeve with a manual and art book in it. The disc itself is multicolored, a rarity among Wii discs. They put a lot of money into this product and can't keep pumping out copies willy-nilly just because a bunch of game journalists say it's a great game, especially if it's going to sit on shelves because it's a compilation.

Now, the other part that disturbs people is the list up above of games that aren't being made anymore. Some were released relatively recently, like Excitebots or the new Pikmin. Is this also a bad sign?

Not really. See reason number one. Companies discontinue games all the time. Some games find a niche and stick there. Some games simply don't. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it just happens. You can't always predict what will work and what doesn't. On top of that, some of those games are almost launch games. Mario Strikers Charged, for instance, was very nearly released at launch. Can you really expect Nintendo to keep on putting out more copies of it indefinitely?

All told, while it is a shame that more people didn't jump on the Metroid Prime Trilogy bandwagon, it's totally understandable why they didn't. It's also understandable why Nintendo ended certain other games as well. The doomsayers are wrong once again.

More Natal Goodies

There's a lot of cool tech at CES right now, and one of the coolest is Project Natal.  According to this article in Joystiq, they've gotten it to do some incredible stuff:

Rather than programming by hand a way for the built-in computer in Natal to detect the thousands of ways the human body can move, they fed it thousands of shots of people in various poses. They also gave it mocapped video, which already had body points pinpointed. The resulting "brain," which is still under serious development, pinpoints about 30 body parts automatically and creates a wireform human figure 30 times a second.

Swoon.  This sort of stuff gets me all excited.  What will game designers do with this?

Now, here's where I get REALLY excited:  Most major studios may not come up with really awesome ideas.  They'll be too busy shoehorning Natal into Madden, Call of Duty, Duty of Madden, and the like.  Where I get excited is thinking about what indie developers on XBox Live will do with Natal.  Once they get their hands on the SDK, all bets are off.  It's an exciting time to be a gamer, folks.

I Know Why The Caged Reviewer Whines

I've been trying to figure out why game reviewers hate Wii games so much.  Is it because they have some predisposed bias?  Is it because they represent some mysterious "hardcore" gaming cabal who is hell-bent on the destruction of the Wii at all costs?  Not really.  The answer is actually much simpler.

Consider this:  Many early Wii games got great reviews.  Metroid Prime 3 is holding at a score of 90 on Metacritic.  Zelda: Twilight Princess has a 95.  Super Mario Galaxy has a 97.  Those are arguably some of the most motion-intensive games around for the Wii. Reviewers liked those games and had no problems with the motion controls.  They might have thought of them as a slight inconvenience, but the reviews usually rated that games on their own merits and didn't throw in backhanded compliments like, "It's good for a Wii game."

So what changed?  Well, there's no denying that the Wii had some lean times through 2007 to 2008.  There were virtually no games that came out during that period.  We had Smash Bros. Brawl, Mario Kart Wii and Wii Fit.  That was it.  However, if you're a reviewer you still have to review something, right?  You can't just ignore a console for an entire year.  So, if there are no good games coming out but you have to review something anyway, you end up reviewing some incredibly crap games.

After a while of playing awful games, what happened to their perception of the system? Instead of seeing the Wii as the Next Big Thing, they started seeing it as a nightmare. Every time they put in a game, they expected that it was going to suck because that's what usually happened.  Since they had to wade neck-deep into the waters of crapware and stay there for a long time, they thought the Wii is bad.  That's totally understandable.  Nintendo's awful Wii Music-revealing 2008 E3 conference didn't help matters either.  Instead of seeing a future of better games, they saw a bleak future of awful minigames and worthless ports, leading to no hope in sight for Nintendo's white monster.

Gamers at large, however, don't have to buy a new game every week.  They don't have review schedules or deadlines.  They can sidestep crappy games if they so choose, and for the most part they do.  Therefore, the Wii keeps selling because their perception of the Wii is completely different than the people who've been forced to play awful games for a year.

The next step to this process comes when the game reviewers look around after all this time playing crappy games and they see that the Wii is STILL SELLING.  They reason, "The Wii sucks!  I've played more crappy games for the Wii than for any other system!  These people must be idiots!  It's my job to steer people away from it so they don't get burned."  They become anti-Wii advocates and end up turning more gamers away from the system.  However, the vast majority of consumers don't care about reviewers or reviews, and instead rely on first-hand accounts and recommendations from friends.  Their friends are buying the Wii and Wii games, so they keep buying them too.  This makes the reviewers even more upset, since they're being ignored by the gaming public at large.  That makes them even louder. Remember, as a reviewer, it's your responsibility to be an advocate for games that are good and a warning for games that aren't.  When people keep buying the Wii, the reviewers get desperate because they assume that the public is buying crappy games for a crappy system.

Add to this the fact that lots of people are being exposed to gaming for the first time through the Wii, and you can see why reviewers are even more upset.  If the Wii sucks, and people are getting their first exposure to gaming through it, then these people will assume that gaming sucks.  However, since the Wii doesn't really suck, these people aren't drawing that assumption, and more people keep buying Wiis despite the protests of reviewers, and the circle continues.

When we analyze it from this angle, we can understand why reviewers see the Wii like they do.  In many ways, it's Nintendo's own fault for not spacing their releases a little better and giving reviewers a reprieve or even throwing them a bone once in a while. However, now that there are better Wii games, it's also the responsibility of the reviewers to put aside their prejudices and review the games for what they are, not what they could have been.

121

I did it.  Pics forthcoming.  After 72 hours and 12 minutes, I just can't believe it.

118 Stars As Luigi

I'm getting achingly close here, people.  Just two more left to go, and they're both Cosmic Races (ugh).  Wish me luck.

The Curious Case of Modern Warfare 2

Would this happen in any other type of media?

From the moment Modern Warfare 2 was announced, was there any doubt as to what its final review score would be?  To paraphrase Tycho, reviewers are torn between trying to decide whether the game is awesome or too awesome.  To a man, they all state that it's fantastic.  Here's the Frankenreview from Kotaku.  What's telling is the little two line sentence at the end:

Anyone surprised?

Isn't this a little weird?  I mean, everything has its detractors.  If you ask 15 different music reviewers what their album of the year is, they'll more than likely give you very different answers.  However, you ask 15 reviewers what their Game of the Year is, and you can be guaranteed that a good chunk will mention Modern Warfare 2. As soon as it was announced, you could pencil it in as most people's Game of the Year, sight unseen. Yes, it's well-crafted. That's not the issue. It is a very good game, but the accolades heaped upon it prior to release are a little weird, and the resounding reception that it's received from day one is intriguing.

So, the question becomes "Why?" Some have ideas revolving around conspiracies between the "gaming media" and the "gaming industry," and others decry that it's just marketing in action, nothing else. There's actually something going on that's far less insidious and shocking, but exposes a very large flaw in the gaming firmament.

If you're reading this, more than likely you are a male under 40 years of age. Since you are a male under 40 who is on the internet, you probably like Star Wars. You've probably seen and enjoyed some war movies in your time. More than likely, you have a passing interest in kung-fu movies. I'm just throwing possibilities out there, but my point is this: Males under 40 have some pretty standard interests. It's not hard to figure out what we like, especially if you're another male under 40 years old.

The gaming industry, gaming journalists, and the playerati alike are mostly populated by males under 40 years of age. Therefore, it's only natural that a game that's as well-crafted, adrenaline-soaked, and explosion-heavy as Modern Warfare 2 would excite your average male under 40. We kind of get each other. The industry knows what we like since we are the industry. The only difference between most game devs and gamers is what side of the screen they're on. So, when devs make a game such as Modern Warfare 2, they're aiming it straight at our flabby hearts because they are us. That's why it's getting such great reviews, because it's a love letter to us from us.

Therein lies the problem. That's kind of unsustainable. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of people aren't males under 40. We're actually a pretty small group. Now, we buy a lot of things so that makes us valuable to advertisers and executives, but we're less than a sixth of the total world population. That means that there are lots of people who really aren't getting served, who don't have an interest in a game like Modern Warfare 2, and who are wondering why the heck we're wasting so much time with our Nintenders, Playwhatsits and Xwhatevers.

That's the challenge facing designers in the 21st century.  They've figured out what we like.  Now it's time to figure out what the rest of the world likes, too.

Two More Games I Forgot:

A Boy and His Blob

Spyborgs

Games I Need To Get On The Wii Yet

These are just games from this year.

The Conduit

Muramasa

Klonoa

Wii Fit Plus

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Little King's Story

Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat

Dawn Of Discovery

That's a pretty good group.  Some may look at this list and make a "pfft" noise and go back to playing Halo, and that's okay.  You've got your system, and I've got mine, and that's totally okay.  I'm just saying that this year is shaping up to be much, much better than last year.

Game Changing News

Microsoft is looking to pick up EA!  Of course, this is all rumor and speculation at this point, but think of what that would mean.  Imagine a world where EA holds the only NFL license, and Microsoft owns EA.  MADDEN COULD POSSIBLY ONLY COME OUT FOR MICROSOFT SYSTEMS.  Rock Band, Dead Space, Bioware games (The Old Republic!), Spore, The SIMS!

If that happens, I guess the balance of power in the gaming industry will shift totally over to Microsoft.  What would Sony do?  Sony has it's own exclusives, but without EA, what's their endgame?  Nintendo would still be fine, since their system sells on the power of their own games, but Sony could be taken completely out of the picture.

This is a game changer, folks.  I'm keeping my eyes on this one.

They Just Don't Learn (XBox 360)

Microsoft finally lowered the price on their Elites! Yay for them! They're clearing out the Pros so that there will only be two models, the Arcade and the Elite, with the high end sitting at $299! This is fantastic news for everyone-

Via Joystiq

Oh.  So now there's a SUPER Elite that they're talking about. I follow. THAT point of entry looks to be at about $450. Instead of a price drop, it turns out to be, in consumers eyes, a price INCREASE. How do you figure? Well, consider this: Right now, in order to get the best possible PS3, it's $299. You have the absolute best system that they offer. In order to get the best possible XBox 360, it's $299. After this bomb drops, in order to get the best possible 360, you'll be paying $450, and for what? A bigger hard drive?

(What got into these console makers that they started making multiple and increasingly confusing SKUs during this console generation? They never did this before. Sega wasn't even this stupid, and they made some extremely questionable decisions.)

You know, when we worked at Best Buy, they talked about different segments of the population that you could market to. Some were more reliable than others. Best Buy's sweet spot was the squishy middle ground of soccer moms and wealthy 50+ guys. Those were the people who spent the most, per capita, and were more likely to stay loyal in the long run. The ones who were least likely to stay loyal in the long run were the 20-35 year old male. They were just looking for the latest and greatest and would go wherever they could get it, whether it was online or at a store. They really weren't Best Buy's target because they knew that those people weren't going to stick around. Best Buy, so far, is the most successful electronics retailer in the world.

What does this mean? Well, there isn't really ANY loyalty in the console race. One generation, Nintendo will be on top. Then Sony. Now Nintendo again, although a lot of people like Microsoft. People keep switching around. Why?

BECAUSE THE TARGET MARKET IS FICKLE 20-35 YEAR OLDS. They're the ones who check specs and actually care about larger hard drive sizes. You can't count on this demographic forever, since they grow up and have families and can't be bothered to put in the time and effort needed to keep up with the constantly changing consoles. The demographic you can COUNT on is the middle range, the 30-55 year old group who has families and has brand loyalty. Plus, just as a point of comparison, looking at those numbers, how long to you have people from 20 to 35? 15 years. How long does the second demographic last? 25 years. It makes sense to target the second group.

Crap like this is why the console race is getting wacky and Nintendo keeps curb-stomping the competition month after month. They picked the most loyal demographic and they're serving them. They don't have to worry about the 20-35 year old male. They'll get them on the way, but they won't focus on the young male because the young male will get distracted by the next bright shiny that comes along with a new 250 GB hard drive that does absolutely nothing for gameplay.

Once Again, Penny Arcade Explains It All

I like what they say about the PS3 here:

Reporters can't seem to decide if the three hundred dollar PS3 Slim is awesome or too awesome, when it's actually a barbed black crown of shame, and that's more or less the end of the discussion. It can't be seen as anything but a concession to a market that has consistently chosen their competitor's products - an act of contrition, the purest evidence possible that this brand is no longer sufficient to sway consumers.  There is an optional stand available that allows you to stand the system vertically, on its side - making the system a literal tombstone, as well as a figurative one.

It's a little harsh, but I get his point.  The Slim looks awesome, yes.  I'll probably get one once my nerd rage over lack of PS2 support dies down.  (I mean, seriously, how could you screw that up!  You have a library of HUNDREDS of great games that you just THROW OUT THE WINDOW?  I'm hyperventilating.)  But all of it was in response to Sony making some questionable, somewhat defensible but ultimately wrong decisions.

Sony Is Really Stupid

OK, so Sony decided to not put in downwards compatibility into the PS3 Slim.  Here's their reasoning:

"Now that we're at a point where we're three years into the lifecycle of the PS3," he told us earlier today, "there are so many PS3 disc-based games that are available that we think — and noticed this from our research — that most consumers that are purchasing the PS3 cite PS3 games as a primary [reason]".

"And it's not just like 50 or 60 percent. It's well into the 80 or 90 percentile range who are purchasing it for PS3 [games]. We do know that there are next gen consumers wanting to come over the the PS3. Most of those are consumers who have not utilized their PS2 for a little while and they're ready to jump into the PlayStation 3."

ARGH!

OK, so here's why people are buying PS3s for PS3 games and not PS2 games.  IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAY PS2 GAMES ON THE PS3.

Downwards compatibility acts as a user-friendly bridge.  When you buy a new system, like the 360, PS2, Wii, or DS, you're able to play games from the previous system on it already.  That means that you're not cutting off an entire library at the knees and you're making it easier for people to justify the upgrade costs.  The most popular systems of today have had built-in downwards compatibility.  Did Sony learn nothing from the PS2?  I mean, they sold 140 million of these things!  Now they're expecting people to basically throw away all their old PS2 games just because the PS3 is out?

And Sony wonders why they're lagging behind.

PS3 Price Drop! Shocking!

Shocking absolutely no one, the PS3 price is now $299.  I'm still on the fence about one, though.  I'll have to save my pennies.