:thumbsup:

Good post mr.snowmizer. Excellent point about Sega's wishes to go online and Nintendo's reluctance. I think this is just a rumor and that Sega will stay a 3rd party and supply games to all 3 consoles, though I do wish they would give the PS2 some more love. They're too smart to go exclusive...

And I would hate to see the Gunvalkyrie and Jet Set Radio franchises die out just because the games didn't sell so well on XBOX. If the PS2 can have weird niche games like Parapa the Rapper and Mr. Mosquito, then it can have games like Jet Set Radio Future.

PS2 MISTER MOSQUITO 24,602
PS2 PARAPPA THE RAPPER 2 25,266

This just illustrates the dilemma of whether it's better to go after a smaller userbase and face less competition.

Would GunValkyrie have sold more on PS2, or would it have been buried in anonymity in the vast sea of titles crowding PS2 retail shelves? Would Mr. Mosquito actually have sold more on Xbox? We'll never know.

It won't be the sales figures which draw Sega to be bought out by microsoft (if it turns out to be Microsoft) ... Sales figures will have nothing to do with it. It will be money.

It will be a large lump-sum buy-out. Microsoft will acquire sega, and all the sega managment will retire very rich and very happy. In return Microsoft will have exclusive rights to the entire sega catalog. And all the Sega development teams and the sega brand will now be wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft.

It will all come down to Sega Execs wanting cash, and Microsoft wanting the titles and names.

You can't really use niche market titles that most people either haven't heard of or aren't interested in, to address the issue of whether a company should put a game out for the system with a smaller user base and face less competition, or the one with the larger user base, and more potential customers.

It's better to use something like a Sonic game that appeals to a bunch of people.

Most people don't know what Mr. Mosquito is, so it's not going to sell much on any platform. Similarly, the Parappa games are niche titles that only appeal to fans of "press the buttons with the music games" that isn't going to sell well (especially with DDR taking most of that market).

A better indicator would probably be something like NFL2K3. Sega could look at how many they sell on each console, and figure out what percentage of that consoles owners bought the game. If one has a much higher percentage than the others, then business wise, that would be the best choice for them to put games out exclusively on, if they choose to do so.

It's still obviously not scientific, but it is at least a better example than odd ball niche market games.

But how well did those games sell in Japan? Mr. Mosquito was a very popular game in Japan, Parapa too. How many copies of GunValkyrie and Jet Set Radio Future were sold for the XBox in Japan?

Yeah they might not have sold much better in the US on the PS2, but in Japan, they would have sold a lot more copies. Probably enough to keep the franchises alive for at least one more game apiece.

I agree.

The whole point was that some are inclined to use the 'Sega doesn't sell on Xbox' argument when, in fact, the exclusive Sega games have been nothing but niche, so no conclusion should be drawn, based on those.

And those same people, I'm assuming, would probably hold to the belief that other niche titles, on other systems, sell far better.

Interesting point.

Regardless, I hope this whole Sega Reallignment thing is just a bunch of crap.

It also doesn't seem to make sense to me time wise. We're in the middle of the current generations console lifespan. People are already predicting that the PS3 will be coming out in 3-4 years. If you want to go exclusive with a console, you should do it at the beginning of that console's lifespan, not in the middle because what happens when the next generation of consoles come out and the balance of power shifts?

The fact that Sega wants to get online makes it that much stronger of a possability of pairing with nintendo IMO. :)

Nintendo is not completley ignorant. They know that gamers are going to want to get online. Nintendo just doesn't feel that the time is quite right and that they don't want to have to provide the structure. Sega has experiance, experiance Nintendo could benifit from. Are they looking at this generation or the next who knows.

20 bucks on Nintendo if it happens.

Rare out, Sega In.

I think the type of games that Sega makes are going to appeal to the Nintendo gamers more than the Xbox ones. The solid sales of Monkey Ball and Sonic 2 might make them realize this. I honestly think JSRF and Crazi Taxi 3 would have sold better on the Game Cube, but that is a total guess on my part. I just know many people like myself that are gamers from way back and we all grew up on Nintendo and Sega games. I think Game Cube owners would be quicker to buy Sega games.

The odd thing is the sports titles. Those seem to do poorly and there is no way Sega could make them exclusive to the Game Cube. Home Run King was total crap and wouldn't have sold on any console, but Soccer Slam was great. If it had been put on PS2 it probably would have done much better.

Overall the going exclusive thing makes no sense. If they go exclusive with Nintendo the would have to keep the sports multi. If the go exclusive to Xbox they are just not going to sell enough to make it work so it would have to be a total sell out and not a partnership. That leaves the PS2 as the only choice and even that makes no sense.

I just don't see this exclusive thing happening, but if it happens I've got a funny feeling it may be with Nintendo and it will not include the sports titles.

First of all, these sales numbers are from July and Crazy Taxi 3 had been out for only 2 weeks when this was compiled. JSRF did about as well as the original if not better. The Dreamcast game had crappy sales. Gunvalkry was just a crappy game - it got panned by the critics which usually will have something to do with low sales.

Soccer Slam wouldn't do well on any console because it's a soccer game. Soccer games ultimately do very poorly in the US. Americans don't like soccer... and outside of EA's FIFA games, no soccer game will sell in America. As for the rest of the sports games, the PS2 will sell more because there's 10x as many consoles out there... please note though that the sports titles didn't sell 10x as many copies for the PS2 as they did for the Xbox (they sold 10x as many copies as the GCN though). Xbox beats Gamecube on the sports titles though by selling twice as many copies or more (and there aren't twice as many Xboxes as there are Gamecubes). As far as ratios go - Sega sports games are doing better on the Xbox than any other console. That would be alot more meaningful if all 3 consoles had equal market saturation which they obviously don't. :)

Give the Xbox a Virtua Fighter or a Sonic game - something good that's guaranteed to sell well by name alone on any console and see what those numbers show.

Thats what I'm not sure about. Well I think Virtua Fighter would do good on the Xbox, but Sonic makes me wonder. If you look at the top selling Xbox games, most are Mature titles or stuff that appeals to adults. The Gamecube is kind of opposite. Monkey Ball is a good example. I wonder if that game would have done anything on the Xbox.

I don't know for sure of course. Maybe when Blinx comes out we can get a better idea for the appeal of these types of games to Xbox owners.

My point is I think Sega needs to keep itself split. Sonic could work on any console because of the name, but other stuff would probably be best split among the three. Shenmue for instance just sounds like something better put on the Xbox and Monkey Ball seems better suited for the Game Cube. Maybe I'm crazy. :D

Im sticking with the Cube version of Sonic purely for the GBA link. That rawked!

Quality mature titles sell well on the GC. Mature titles such as Eternal Darkness and RE.

[b]I think you will find that many Nintendo fans are willing to play a quality title regardless of demographics. [b/]Where as a large portion of Xbox owners are afraid of games that might appear chidish, no matter the fun factor.

I can show my friends countless reviews of how great Mario Sunshine is or SMB and they will refuse even try it. It's insane how they allow their perceptions to prevent them from having a good time. :rolleyes:

Sadly, I am guilty of this as well. I've always stayed away from the 'kiddie' titles, no matter how much I hear about them. This was true with the N64/Playstation duel...My friend bought an N64, I watched the Mario game for a couple minutes and said "Yeah, it looks OK, but can you kill anything? Why does everything look so "happy""? Then when Mario Cart came out, I said "Why?? Why have a decent driving game with lame-ass nintendo characters drving them?".

For Christ's sake Nintendo, try making an original game without Mario characters!!

...just my opinion...

Like Pikmin?

I wonder if the reason Sega Sports titles sell so poorly on GCN or Xbox is because people already own it on PS2?

Until Sega can turn WSB into a Madden caliber title I couldn't care less about their sports games.

Thanks for being honest, you are certainly welcome to your opinion of Nintendo's choices.

For me it's just a perplexing subject. I did not mean to get OT, merely responding.

Sports gamers tend to be more casual gamers, and are more likely to own a PS2 than the other system. Hard core gamers that like sports games, and own more than one system will be more likely to buy it for the X-box, because they do their research and know that the games generally look better on the X-box, and they don't have to worry about memory cards because of the hard drive. The mem card is a killer for the GCN. I bought NCAA 2003 for the PS2, when I would have prefered the GCN version just because I would of had to of bought a MEM 251 card to save anything.

Of course that is just a generalization based on a survey I saw somewhere (majority of sports gamers classified as casual by the number of games they buy a year) and the latter just a personal observation. But it does explain why you see the most sports sales on the PS2 and the least on the GCN.

I have all 3 systems. I think sega should stay 3rd party. This way they get the most exposure.

a complete kick in the head, and probably would never happen fanboy wish: Sega stays 3rd party for a few years, puts out high quality games for all systems that gets a huge fanbase.
then they get back into the hardware business and go exsculsive once more for their own hardware. now that they have a larger market (more people know what great games sega makes) they crave them in their sleep and will buy the new sega system, making sega profitable!!. :D
and then I flood the worlds sewers system with chocolate pudding! pudding overflowing everywhere!! muahhahahha

...ok uhm yeah that last part is my own take-over-the-world plot. but the rest of it.... its a sega fangirl wish come true.
of course it would never happen... :(

my 2.2 cents

I don't know if that's true. I don't doubt there are some Xbox owners who steer clear of games with childish graphics/themes but I think saying that a large portion do might be a stretch. I own all three consoles and happen to own and enjoy Super Mario Sunshine. However, I can understand if someone can't enjoy a game with childish graphics. Perhaps the problem is in your assumption that Mario's gameplay is inherently fun. I find it fun but my best friend finds the gameplay to be boring and frustrating. He may be in the minority but it is possible for people to dislike Mario for it's gameplay.

It's definitely possible for people to dislike Mario's gameplay. However, tons of people on this site, and especially on other boards, just dismiss the game (and most nintendo games) for the childish graphics.

I don't know if I'd say most X-box owners do this. I would say that they are more likely than the owners of the Gamecube or PS2 to write off a game simply for having "kiddy" graphics simply because the x-box is geared more toward realistic, mature games. Thus someone that bought one is more likely to not enjoy games with "kiddy" graphics. It's still probably not a majority, but just a larger percentage when compared to people that don't own an X-box.

So from that stand point, it's reasonable to assume that games like mario, sonic, super monkey ball, etc. wouldn't sell as well on the X-box, and as a result sega would be better either staying third party, or joining up with Nintendo or Sony, so as to have a larger audience for their "kiddy" games.

Of course, there's no real way to tell for sure how "kiddy" games will sell on the X-box until one is released, so this is nothing more than my take on the situation.

I still think that Sony sells more sports titles simply because there are more PS2s out there. If you look at the proportions - Xbox is doing better than the other two in sports titles. Let's look at the ratios:

These numbers are very fudgy, but not too far off.

PS2 - 30 million consoles - NBA 2K2 369,955 - 1.2%
Xbox - 4 million consoles - NBA 2K2 86,708 - 2.1%
GCN - 4 million consoles - NBA 2K2 45,098 - 1.1%

Sports titles are doing a helluva lot better on the Xbox as far as ratios are concerned... outselling both Gamecube and PS2 two to one. If there were only 4 million PS2s, their sports title sales for that game would be somewhere around Gamecubes. Now, this may mean nothing and it may mean everything.

As for kid's games or whatever - I'm really excited for Blinx. There have been family oriented games on the Xbox since launch - the Xbox has a very balanced lineup.

Of course the PS2 sells more sports games because there are more PS2s out there.

There are more casual gamers than hardcore gamers, and they own the PS2 more than any other system (obviously or there wouldn't be such a huge disparity in sells.

The survey I refered to said that the majority of sports gamers (sports their favorite genre of games) were casual gamers, and that most of them owned a PS2.

So it's not just the sales disparity that leads to more sports sells, but also that people that prefer sports games over all other games are more likely to own a PS2, which means there's a bigger market for sports games on the PS2 for reasons beyond simply having a ton more consoles in homes.

Of course, sports gamers should wise up and get an X-box instead as it is far and away the best platform for sports, but casual gamers (who make up the majority of sports gamers) generally don't put the time into doing research to find out more about the systems. They just go buy brand name, most games on the shelves, what their friends have, etc. which pushes them toward the PS2.

You need to drop this whole casual gamer/hardcore gamer thing - it's meaningless. If what you are saying actually meant something, then the sports title sales for the PS2 would be much higher. More people have a PS2 because it has been out for a year longer than the other 2 systems and had a better lineup of games for last Xmas than the launch titles of the other 2 systems and because it's a backwards compatible sequel system. You're overanalyzing it with all this hardcore/softcore stuff and "what's the gamer thinking?" stuff. The numbers are all proportional (PS2 has an advantage in sheer volume and Xbox has a ratio advantage) and don't really tell us anything.

Trigger, I appreciate that you're trying to get more analytical in this discussion by calculating the market penetration for NBA 2K2 in each of its respective markets, but I must respectfully suggest that the numbers you present there have little meaning.

Mainly, the problem is that the margin of error for the calculations you're making far overwhelm the differences in the numbers themselves. But also, I believe the installed base numbers that are relevant are the ones that were accurate at the time NBA 2K2 launched, not what they are now. And finally, your analysis doesn't factor in the competitive situation in each market. It may be that NB2K2 didn't do as well for one console or another because there was another similar title available on that console that was far superior.

Again, like I said, I appreciate that unlike others who are merely blowing smoke and make no attempt at substantiating their claims, you are at least trying to provide some support for your argument. Unfortunately, in order for such analysis to be meaningful, your methodology must be much more rigorous.

NBA2K2 came out what 2 months after Inside Drive? By then how many basketball fans already grabbed Inside? But all things being equal belboz is still right a less than 1% difference when your talking about millions of consoles could very well be a statisticaly anomaly.

Thanks - I did admit that the numbers were fudgy, but I don't think going back a few months for console depth will make a huge difference in the percentages. I also admitted that the numbers weren't all that meaningful - I don't think the sales data is very meaningful as I've stated before as well.

I've tried to debunk all the speculations about those sales numbers because they aren't telling - the only numbers that would be telling would be Sega games that were released across all platforms and then you bring up an excellent point that debunks that - similar games for each console coming out and stealing sales away from the Sega game. That's a factor of course and maybe Sega is considering going to a console with less competition.

We're all just speculating here about something we don't even know to be true yet. I agree that my comparisons aren't completely accurate and they don't carry much weight, but I think it's one of the most factual argument brought up so far in this discussion... meaning we aren't going to figure this one out by ourselves either. :)

Maybe it means something and maybe it doesn't... 1% difference doesn't sound like alot, but if you're Sega and you're looking at 1% sales on the PS2 and the Gamecube and 2% sales on the Xbox - that might cause for an eyebrow or two to raise. It's likely to be something Sega is taking into account. This is all just 'seed of doubt' at this point and I'm not saying I know something nobody else does. I'm actually saying that none of us know anything.

And for some odd reason MS announces their 1st party Basketball game wont be online this year. Grist for the rumor mill?

I don't like sports games anyway. :p

<IMG src="http://community.webshots.com/storage/1/v0/8/67/73/48786773qssJoT_ph.jpg">

:D

I can't imagine Sega would look at perecentages over actual units moved. The Xbox is never going to catch up to the PS2, so saddling themselves to the Xbox soley because they sell twice as many per console doesn't make much sense.

I'm also not convinced that Sega has as much of an effect on the VG market anymore as some people would like to think.

Yeah percentages don't mean crap. They make profit per unit. A smaller percentage on the PS2 is still going to be more units sold than a slightly higher percentage on the GCN or X-box.

Percentages mean a helluva lot more than hardcore and softcore gamers or whatever argument you were pushing... and by the way - duh - I said that PS2 sold more units.

This is one statement I can agree with. Since going third party they have made little impact and I wonder if they have done any better profit wise.

I think their reputation was hurt so bad by the failure of both the Saturn and Dreamcast (I liked both consoles myself though) that most people buying games today really aren't impressed any more by the Sega name. Not sure how the 2K3 games will do, but early on it looks like EA is pounding them in the football market. Other than Sonic I'm not sure how much name recognition they still have.

There will still be people like myself that love Sega and will give them a chance, but I think they have long since been passed over by the mainstream. Of all the games they released since the Dreamcast only three have gone over the 100,000 sales mark. Thats pretty bad. Microsoft buying them out may be a real possibility with their sales so bad.

Going third party was not the easy answer to all of Sega's problems like many people thought.

There have been articles and reports on how Sega has been doing better since it has gone 3rd party.

1 reason why I don't think Sega will go with Nintendo is that there are pretty strong rumors that Nintendo will go software only at the end of the Gamecube lifecycle. If not software only, then maybe stop producing consoles and stick with the handheld market. Let's face it, it takes a long time for a console to be profitable, especially if you are trying to start at a lower price point than the competition. Think how much money Nintendo would make if the went hardware agnostic like Sega is now.

Sonic, SMB, VF4, and Crazy Taxi (PS2 +DC) have all been strong sellers.

Chris

I love it when all these dilettante economists pop up with their comments on how Nintendo should go software only, or will go software only, and that Nintendo will be more profitable when they do go software only.

Sorry to break the news to all you so late, but most innovations in hardware came from Nintendo; Sega, on the other hand, had to go software only because they were always overshadowed by Nintendo and then Sony.

Don't worry Nintendo fan-boys! Nintendo will always be around to produce innovative hardware. They also seem to be the most efficient of the console producers, breaking even or making profits early on in the console's life-span, allowing more cash to go into R&D for the next generation...