Dealing With A Sinus Infection

WOOOOOOO they rule.  So therefore there haven't been any articles.  I'll be coming back with more shortly.  Don't forget about me.  I'm needy.

Nielsen Ratings For Consoles

Nielsen and NPD just released a comprehensive report of gaming numbers and statistics.  You can read it here.  There are lots of pretty charts and graphs, but also some interesting points.  Here's one:

Consoles tend to be used similarly in three distinct groups. The first group includes the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. These two consoles have the highest active user percent measures of any other console Nielsen measures. They also have the highest average usage days and daily average number of sessions. The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 have more features and functions than other consoles Nielsen measures. The next set of consoles which have similar primary usage characteristics are the PlayStation 2 and the Xbox. Primary users in the set play at least once a week for more than an hour. The average usage days and daily average number of session are almost identical for users of both the Xbox and PlayStation 2.

The third set of like used consoles are the Wii and GameCube. The Wii and GameCube have similar, and the smallest numbers in terms of daily average number of sessions, average usage days, and active user percent. Predominant users of the Wii and GameCube are likely to use these consoles at most once a week and for fewer minutes and the fewest number of sessions compared to the other two groups of consoles.

However, here's another quote:

Figure 4 shows the usage minutes for all tracked consoles each month from January 2008 to January 2009. Looking at the total usage minutes across all consoles for 2008, PlayStation 2 with the largest installed base still leads all other consoles. However both the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 usage minutes are both trending down for the year. Xbox usage minutes are also trending down for 2008. The Xbox 360, Wii and GameCube usage minutes are trending upward. (Italics ours)

Interesting stuff.  It's weird that the Wii is sold the most but used the least.  However, here's another quote from a noted analyst:

Why, according to this, only 6% of Wii owners ACTIVELY use their Wii! That's hilarious! More people actively use their Gamecube than the Wii! See, the Wii is a fad after all. Cut and dried, right?

Take a look at the top number on the graph. Only 11% of 360 owners actively use their 360 and only 10% of PS3 owners actively use their PS3. Now, let's do a little math.  There are 50 million Wii owners. 6% of that number is 3 million.  There are 30 million 360 owners. 11% of that number is 3.3 million.  There are 20 million PS3 owners. 10% of that number is 2 million.  In other words, almost the same amount across the board use their system regularly. The gap in percentages is not that great, but the graph (and the way people are reading it) makes it look like "OMG A HUEGE GAP!"

Let's See How Well They Did: Dec 2009 (NPD Predictions)

What use are predictions if we can't analyze them afterwards? First, here were the predictions from Michael Pachter and EEDAR for the month of December:

Pachter

Wii- 3,200,000
PS3 - 1,400,000
Xbox 360 - 1,350,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 650,000
DS - 2,450,000

EEDAR

Wii - 3,000,000
PS3 - 1,450,000
Xbox 360 - 1,490,000
PS2 - 350,000
PSP - 350,000
DS - 2,800,000

Here were the final numbers from NPD:

Wii - 3,810,000
PlayStation 3 - 1,360,000
Xbox 360 - 1,310,000
PlayStation 2 - 333,2000
PSP - 654,700
Nintendo DS - 3,310,000

What can we discern from this? First, PACHTER IS A WIZARD. He called most of the squishy middle. Second, everyone underestimated the sales of the Wii and DS again. I think they did it because these numbers
trump 2008's numbers, and they assumed that there was no way they could beat the 2008 numbers in such a down economy. They were wrong.This month's winner: Pachter. We'll keep tracking this, because it's
important to know who to trust in this industry.

Digital Distribution Stats (Via Kotaku)

A study performed by the NPD Group has found that during Q3 2009 (August-September), 90% of all game purchases were "physical", meaning they came on a disc or cartridge. Leaving the other 10% of purchases to be...anyone? Yes, digital, meaning they were downloaded.

The study also had some interesting numbers on games piracy, especially if you're a Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony executive gripped by fear: "only" six million gamers admitted to downloading games illegally during the same period. Six million sounds like a lot, but the NPD Group say that's only 4% of all gamers.

And of that 4%, 72% of the pirating was being done on PC and Mac. So while console piracy is definitely a problem, it's might not be the epidemic some platform holders and publishers would have you believe.

Source

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.

Criminally Overlooked Games: Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards

Kirby has always gotten a bum rap. The best Kirby game, Kirby's Adventure, came out at the very end of the NES' life cycle when no one was playing it anymore. Kirby Super Star came out at the very end of the SNES' life cycle, a week before Super Mario 64 launched. Finally, Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards came out right at the end of the Nintendo 64's life cycle, only a scant few months before the launch of the PS2. It didn't stand a chance.

Kirby 64 wasn't very well received at the time, either. Famitsu rated it a 32/40. Gamespot gave it a 6.9 out of 10. IGN gave it a 7.9 out of 10. A lot of reviewers didn't like it because of what it wasn't: It wasn't a great leap forward in Kirby game technology. It was still a side-scroller with 3-D backgrounds. It was staunchly old-school in a time when people were itching to leave the old school behind.

Now, of course, with side-scrollers making a pretty major resurgence, the decision to make Kirby 64 a very nice looking side-scroller isn't a bad one in retrospect. Sure, it's a little simplistic, but making Kirby an open-world 3-D game would be a massive failure. He's not a Zelda or Mario or GTA that can make the transition seamlessly. He's just not built for it, but as the modern market has proved, you can get a lot of mileage out of good looking side-scrollers.

In a sense, Kirby 64 was a game simultaneously behind the times and ahead of its time. It was behind the times because they weren't making that type of game anymore, but ahead of its time since developers and gamers have gone back to side-scrollers in droves with games like Braid, New Super Mario Bros., the Metroidvania games, Shadow Complex, Trine, and many more. Once again, Kirby 64 was the victim of bad timing.

It's a shame, too, since Kirby 64 has a lot going for it. It still looks fantastic, with clean lines and very little pixelation inherent in a lot of 64-bit era games. The 3-D backgrounds, while not necessarily adding anything to the gameplay, all look outstanding almost ten years later. The levels are entertaining, with Kirby traversing the standard ice worlds, rock worlds, fire worlds and so on while using all manner of special powers. It's not horribly challenging to beat the first time through, as can be expected of Kirby games. However, in order to get 100% and see the "true" ending you may find yourself resorting to various FAQs. The solutions are always deviously clever or look far simpler than they actually are.

There are other twists to the Kirby formula as well. For instance, in the early going, you help three of your friends who have come under the influence of the titular crystals including erstwhile baddie King DeDeDe. After you help them out, they join you on your quest by opening up pathways or, in the case of King DeDeDe, letting you ride them and use their powers. I loved the portions where you were able to use the King, since his hammer powers are really fun to use.

The best twist is that you're able to combine powers. By way of example, if you have the ice power, you can take it out and combine it with electricity to transform into a refrigerator that flings food at enemies that can be eaten by Kirby to regain health. If you combine the needle and electric powers, you can become a lightning rod that destroys nearby enemies. If you combine stone with stone, you can become a giant, walking Kirby golem. And, best of all, the cutter power with electricity gives you a double-sided lightsaber. Seriously.

Kirby 64 is kind of short, but you can get it on the Virtual Console for $10. For $10 it's not bad at all, and getting 100% will take you a while. Even if you like Kirby games just a little bit, you'll find something to love in Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards. A game that's great, was released without fanfare and died a quick death? I'd call that game Criminally Overlooked.

Penny Arcade Explains It All (Again)

"The Wii was either "innovative" or "gimmicky," depending on your perspective, an evergreen topic that still springs up now and again. There is a similar cleave between things that are Homage and things that are Derivative, though this one can get complicated quick. In such scenarios, it's nice to have a quick rule of thumb to sunder any lingering ambiguities."

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.

What Does 3DTV Need To Do To Succeed?

I hated Avatar.  I thought it was boring, and I thought the 3D was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.  However, it's obvious that I'm in the minority.  It's made over a billion dollars worldwide (!!!) and is wooing and wowing audiences all over.  This could very well tilt the balance of 3D entertainment.

However, we still go back to the fact that I hate it and think that it's boring.  So now, as an analyst, I have to decide whether things I say about 3D entertainment are truly correct analysis or just my personal opinion.  Am I being cranky about it since I'm mad that Avatar is making so much money, or do I have legitimate concerns?  My opinion can't not enter into play, if you catch my drift.  Anything I read or see about new 3D displays is filtered through my personal opinion, so I'm going to lay out what I see happening with 3D and you can tell me if I'm being cranky or if I have legitimate concerns.

First, people like 3D.  That much is now established.  They liked it in the 50's too, but the complicated processes to make 3-D work both during filming and projection led to its downfall.  Now that its usage seems to be perfected through the use of digital film and computer technology, we should see a lot more 3D entertainment.  However, the question now becomes:  Do people like 3D at home?  There's virtually no media to show whether or not people will watch 3D on a regular basis at home.  Sure, 3D episodes of shows are popular, but those are one-off shots, not regular, day-in, day-out viewing habits.  Wearing dorky glasses that make you look like Rivers Cuomo is fine in a group setting where everyone's doing the same thing.  Will audiences be willing to do that at home?  It sounds silly, but has anyone ever really asked that question on a large scale?

Also, what led to 3D's downfall in the 50's?  They had to run two projectors in the theaters to display 3D properly, and if the projectors were even slightly off it would create headaches and eyestrain.  Here's where America's penchant for buying cheap crap comes into play.  You can explain the difference between a $300 HDTV and a $700 HDTV to a consumer for hours and explain why they need the better TV, but will that stop them from buying the cheap one?  Not really. Most consumers will crowd Walmart for a new Vizio TV instead of laying down the money for something slightly better that will cost them more.  A better HDTV might provide higher resolution, clarity, and contrast, things that are important, but most customers feel they can live with the slightly lower quality.  In 3DTVs, there's far less margin for error.  If a cheap 3D TV messes up the images even slightly, where are we?  Eyestrain, headaches and problems with people complaining about 3D.

So, cheap 3D TVs are a tricky proposition.  It will take a while for the price to come down to the point where everyone can purchase one.  Even now, the most popular HDTVs are the ones that are as cheap as possible.  If every HDTV had to be held to an extremely high standard, the price would be more and HDTV adoption would be much less than it already is, which is currently at a little less than 50% of households.  Let's wrap that up and put a little bow on it:  If people buy cheap stuff more often than expensive stuff, and 3DTVs will keep a high price point out of necessity, it'll take far longer for 3DTVs to become mainstream than HDTVs.

Here's what a lot of manufacturers are hoping for:  They're hoping that consumers who haven't yet adopted HDTV will skip right over purchasing an HDTV and go straight to 3DTV.  Is that a possibility?  Well, hand a consumer two choices.  Give them the brand new bright-and-shiny 3DTV that costs $3000 or the HDTV that costs $500, and see which one they'll pick.  They might want the 3DTV, but they'll end up going with the HDTV 9 times out of 10.  Why?  Because it's cheaper, and times are tough.

Here's where it becomes especially problematic.  You can watch an HDTV program on a standard definition TV and not have any problems.  Sure, it'll be in letterbox format, but you can still see the broadcast clearly, and even get a feel for the benefits of HD.  You can also obviously watch an HD program on an HDTV.  You CANNOT watch a 3D program on standard definition or high definition TV.  What does that mean?  Well, broadcast TV helped lead the charge for HDTV.  When shows like ER started broadcasting in high-def, it demystified the concept for the average user.  They understood that it was just the same as regular TV, just sharper and they needed a better TV to see the pretties.  In this case, broadcast TV no longer has the same effect as it once did, and most cable channels are finally getting around to doing HD.  The only way to go out of your way and watch 3D programming is by getting a 3D channel on your TV, but you can't view a 3D channel unless you have a 3D TV.  It's a chicken-and-egg scenario.

Now, where Avatar is so important is because it IS the egg.  It's the flashpoint where audiences are discovering that 3D is viable and cool.  After Avatar, TV manufacturers and TV channels don't have to do as much convincing explaining that 3D is cool, because the vast majority of people already understand that it is.  However, we're now going back to the question at the beginning:  3D is OK in the theater, but is it OK at home?  Do people want it in the house, or will they feel dorky and silly?  In other words, 3D is cool in the theater, but will it translate to the home?

Here's the next big issue: The movie industry has finally found their magic bullet to get butts in the theater.  Avatar is the biggest thing to happen to movies in a long time.  Will the movie industry be willing to lose its one big bargaining chip with audiences?  Think about it:  The movie industry has been haggling with audiences for a long time trying to get them into the theater.  That's where they make the bulk of their money from, with DVD sales providing a boost for movies that didn't do so hot in distribution.  The industry is also trying to stamp out piracy, and 3D may be the ticket.  I mean, if you film a 3D movie with a camcorder, you won't see it clearly, you won't get a good view of it, and it'll look weird and distorted.  Who would want to watch that at home?  Plus, a lot of people are going to the theater based on the premise of "I'm not going to be able to get the full effect of this movie by renting it so I should see it in the theater."  The movie industry has to be cackling with glee over this revelation.  Will they willingly let this brand-new advantage slide out of their fingers?

Let's put it all together.  Consumers like cheap TVs, so 3DTVs aren't going to sell as well since you can't make them cheap.  Early adopters and power users will be the ones who get them.  There will be some channels that broadcast 3D entertainment, but not that many since, once again, there won't be that many 3D users out there.  Movie companies may be reluctant to let their movies hit 3D Blu-Ray in an attempt to hold on to their money for longer.  They'll undoubtedly bank on this technology far more in order to make movies in the theater "events" instead of just "movies."

Meanwhile, the average Joe won't get what all the fuss is about.  Every time he watches a 3D program on his standard def or high def TV, it just looks blurry and the glasses don't work right.  Plus, he just spent X amount of dollars getting this new HDTV, and he'll be damned if he goes out and buys another one just so he can wear some glasses.  Our average Joe will certainly like 3D movies, and the one time he saw some sports in 3D it looked neat, but he can see everything just great in his HDTV.  Why switch?  Unlike HDTV, where the difference was palpable and unmistakable, 3DTV is a little more nebulous.  Sure, you can see things coming at you a little bit better, but besides that, what's the benefit?  

However, the major benefit actually comes down to one of the most immersive entertainments around:  Video games.  Imagine playing on your Playstation 3 and playing Modern Warfare 2 in 3D mode.  I get chills just thinking about it.  That's an experience that you cannot duplicate in the theater or anywhere else.  Remember, 3DTVs are not aimed at grandpa or grandma.  Those audiences simply won't be the primary users, and they'll be fine with their standard def TVs and digital converter boxes.  The aim of the 3DTV makers should be at the people who have the most disposable income and the most reason to upgrade:  Young male gamers.  They're used to looking like dorks anyway, since gaming implies a small measure of geekiness.  Then, once you've ensnared them, you can make inroads with other audiences and provide more TV and movies in home 3D.

So, if you're a TV manufacturer and you want 3D to become a big deal, what should you do?  Don't bother showing off 3D with reruns of The King of Queens or crappy concerts starring Taylor Swift.  Get young guys at a Best Buy to put on some glasses, pick up a controller, and see for themselves.  If they do that, I guarantee you'll have converts, and it could change the very nature of the gaming industry for good as well as tilt the 3DTV battle in their favor.  3DTV will still never take over the marketplace totally until they can replicate 3D consistently without need for glasses, but it's the surest way to give it the best possible shot.

So, how about it?  Was I too cranky?  Was I right on the mark?  Or am I just blowing smoke?

Great News About the DS

I was all set with an article warning about the impending end of the DS' dominance, even after such a great 2009.  It was going to be all doom and gloom and why Nintendo needed to put out a new DS soon, and lo and behold, here's some info from Gizmodo:

Upgrading the 256 x 192 DS, the next DS incarnation—after the DSi XL—will have a 1024 x 768 screen according to several sites, which is very close to a decent 720p res.

WHEEEEEE!  This is my main complaint.  Games like Spirit Tracks look really long-in-the-tooth compared to other games for the system.  It seems like the DS is almost regressing, actually.  Plus, in order to put a real end to piracy, it may be the best move for them.

My Most Played Wii Games (Jan 2010)

I know I just released these figures, but I decided I'm going to release them on the same schedule as my "State of the System" articles.  After each number, I wrote down the change since the last time I recorded these numbers.  "E" means no change. "New" should be obvious.  This is more just for fun than for anything else, and plus I can keep track of how much time I've wasted so far.

Retail Games:

1. Super Mario Galaxy - 72 Hrs. 12 Mins. (+6 Hours)
2. Super Smash Bros. Brawl - 54 Hrs. 2 Mins. (+1 Hour)
3. Wii Sports - 42 Hrs. 28 Mins. (E)
4. MLB Power Pros 2008 - 41 Hrs. 5 Mins. (E)
5. Mario Kart Wii - 38 Hrs. 56 Mins. (E)
6. Beatles: Rock Band - 31 Hrs. 21 Mins. (+14 Hours)
7. Metroid Prime Trilogy - 27 Hrs. 19 Mins. (+7 Hours)
8. Rock Band 2 - 21 Hrs. 2 Mins. (+4 Hours)
9. Animal Crossing: City Folk - 15 Hrs. 40 Mins. (E)
10. New Super Mario Bros Wii - 14 Hrs. 40 Mins. (New)

Top 5 Downloadable Games (Excluding Channels):

1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 14 Hrs. 8 Mins. (E)
2. Dr. Mario Online RX - 5 Hrs. 37 Mins. (New)
3. Super Mario World - 4 Hrs. 45 Mins. (New)
4. Adventure Island: The Beginning - 4 Hrs. 30 Mins. (New)
5. Mega Man 9 - 4 Hrs. 17 Mins. (New)

(Last recorded time: November 4th)