According to the NPDs, CoD Black Ops dominated, predictably. What is surprising is that it's the only game that managed to beat Just Dance 2, a Wii exclusive, and in case you don't remember, the NPD top ten now groups all SKUs of a title together. That means Just Dance has just served multi-platform games such as Dead Space 2 and AssCreed Bro-ho.
The software top ten chart:
1.Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.Just Dance 2 3.Dead Space 2 4.LittleBigPlanet 2 5.Zumba Fitness: Join the Party 6.NBA 2K11 7.Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood 8.Dance Central 9.Michael Jackson: The Experience 10.DC Universe Online
That list DOES seem oddly varied (though Dance-heavy). I've gotta wonder about the raw numbers, though. Somehow, it didn't seem like DS2 and LBP2 made very big waves. Not that I'm 'tuned in' to the scene.
@New Forms The healthiest thing for gamers would be for one platform to utterly dominate the others and get all the games.
Is MS still riding the Kinect wave? Is that Zumba fitness a Kinect game?
For all that 'hardcore Japanese support' that MS has financed and all of the variety that they promise, it looks like Kinect will become largely an exercise/dance machine, just like Wii Fit. The audience has spoken.
I kind of see what you're saying, but I like to see an even playing field because each platform has something unique to offer.
On the flip side, I wouldn't be opposed to a single-platform generation, but I think it would be hard to please all tastes in such a scenario. Sure, all software development would be directed toward it, but unless you have 10 control methods out of the box, a percentage of gamers would be left in the cold.
For Kinect, MS had a press release saying 60+% of those 360 sales were Kinect bundles. You're pretty much correct that it is currently a dance/exercise peripheral. I can't believe that MS has dropped the ball with it by not courting core gamers AT ALL with the Kinect. What a missed opportunity.
@warerare You keep shedding weight with every product! Soon you'll nothing but skin and bones!!
There was some segment on X-Play where an exercise dude said that Biggest Loser was the best of the Kinect exercise apps.
@New Forms Like I said, they're making their overture with games from Suda and the Panzer Dragoon dude, just like they did with Japanese games early in the 360's life. But I don't think that's their focus, and I'm not even sure the audience would be there. They might even cancel that stuff, since Kinect bombed in Japan.
As far as a one-console thing, Nintendo, for example, could come out with their controller and suite of games that worked with it. In general, hardware competition is good for hardware pricing and power, but one console would result in better software. Like in the NES days!
Microsoft could even have a proprietary online platform on the system. And Sony could... copy Nintendo's controller?
And do the PS3 and 360 have something unique to offer? They seem largely similar to me.
It's crazy that 60% of 360 sales were Kinect bundles. Actually, 360 sales were up even before Kinect (which I found baffling). Was that just for a completely different reason that resulted in similar numbers?
Yeah, 360 sales were healthy all year in 2010, but it had a big surge pre-Kinect from the Slim model release.
I wouldn't be opposed to a Sony, MS, Nintendo collaboration on a single console. Nintendo does the controls, MS handles online and Sony provides the advanced tech under the hood...it's what they're all best at.
For Sony/MS uniqueness, I'd say that MS offers the best console online/community/download (XBLA and Indie) services bar none this gen. Sony brings in the best Eastern talent (Valkyria Chronicles, Demon's Souls, etc.) and has the strongest 1st/2nd party offerings...for HD consoles at least.
Sure, both share a lot of multiconsole releases, but each are utterly unique at what they are best at. I for one couldn't imagine not having access to both consoles.
Oh, yeah. The slim. I still don't really understand why that boosted sales, but whatever.
Anyway, with one console, the benefits you list for both would still likely exist. Or could, anyway. Japanese games would have to go somewhere. And online services aren't really a hardware-limited feature. There wouldn't be any 'first-party' stuff, but... wouldn't it all pan out somehow, in the end? Developers gonna develop.
Nintendo has been making consoles that kind of set themselves apart on purpose, but I think the 360/PS3 could easily be folded into one. A fixed-PC-box, even.
I always thought a Nintendo/Microsoft box would work to both companies' strengths. Nintendo could supervise the games and controls, and Microsoft could handle services and eating the cost of the console.
I guess it just comes back around to the idea that if there's only a single thing you don't like about this hypothetical single console, then you're screwed.
I enjoy the WiiMote for games like RE4, but I also think the 360 game pad is the best traditional controller to date. What if that single console featured one but not the other? Or worse, what if it was something like Kinect?
A lot of people think Xbox Live pricing is gouging the customers, but I think it's totally worth it. What if the new single console has a weak/anemic online system that doesn't measure up (free or not)?
Things like this make me take pause when considering a single console future. On the one hand it's great 'cause everyone has access to all the games, but the field is just too diverse these days to make everyone happy with a single product.
Shelling out for all 3 consoles is daunting (esp. for early-adopters), but it's pretty freakin' sweet to be able to reach for each one and get a pretty unique gaming experience.
I don't mind a longer console generation. Nintendo should iterate as soon as possible, though.
For me, it's less about the amount of games the console costs than the amount of games that I'm DYING to play on it. That's why I still haven't picked up a PS3. I wouldn't mind one, but it just seems wasteful. If it was backwards-compatible, I probably would've caved already.
I had a conversation with a friend two nights ago about who should do what if they made a collaborative system.
We decided that Sony should be in charge of the hardware, Microsoft in charge of the operating system and Nintendo in charge of the first party games.
(All the following - IMO) The 360 has the best features, interface, online integration, game patches are handled great, etc. And they should. Microsoft is a software company afterall. It's what they know best. But the 360 is notoriously unreliable hardware.
The PS3 has everything I want from a hardware POV. Reliable. Powerful. High def. 3D Blu-ray player and DVD up-scaler with great picture and sound capabilities. Ability to run picture through HDMI while running sound across Optical.
Meanwhile nobody makes consistently awesome first-party games like Nintendo.
Having said that, I hope it never happens. Competition pushes all the companies to work harder, be the best they can be and keep prices under control. A lack of competition would be disastrous for the consumer (as with most consumer industries).
EDIT: on topic - never underestimate the power of a popular casual game.