How will the Wii U fare in the market?

E3 is this week and Nintendo is unveiling the new Wii U.  I have a feeling the Wii U is going to fare pretty poorly in the market.  Here's my reasoning with an analogy.

Some people wonder why first person shooter (FPS) games never sold well on the original Wii.  Despite having more systems out there than Xbox 360 or PS3 (~95M to 66M to 64M as of this writing), many of the best FPS games on the Wii just don't sell well.  As an example, the top two highly rated FPS games on the Wii are Metroid Prime 3 and GoldenEye 007 (90.16% and 83.77% on Gamerankings.com).  Vgchartz shows Metroid Prime 3 sold about 1.62 million units while GoldenEye sold about 1.65 million units.  Several of the Call of Duty games have sold over 1 million units on the Wii, with Call of Duty 3 topping out at 2.15 million units.  I couldn't find any other FPS games on the Wii that sold over 1 million units.

In comparison, the sales numbers for FPS games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 blow these numbers out of the water.  I count ten FPS titles that have sold more than 5 million units on the Xbox 360 and five FPS titles on PS3 that have surpassed 5 million units.  There are tons of FPS games on both that have surpassed 1 million units.

Why the huge difference in sales?  I think the answer is simple.  If you are a fan of FPS games, you probably already possess a system (Xbox 360, PS3, or PC) that already has a ton of FPS titles that you would enjoy.  With so many great FPS titles on those systems, you have little incentive to buy a Wii to play them.  The Wii owners aren't FPS gamers.

If by chance you own a FPS popular system and a Wii, why would you want to play an FPS title on the Wii?  The second highest rated FPS on the Wii is Golden Eye at 83.77%.  The Xbox 360 and PS3 both have dozens of FPS titles rated above that.  So the sales of FPS games on the Wii are for those few customers interested in FPS games but do not possess one of the other FPS gaming devices.

I believe the low sales of FPS games on the Wii will be an foreshadowing of how the Wii U will fare in the market.  From all reports, it appears that the Wii U's hardware is only comparable to the Xbox 360 and PS3.  It is not superior.  While the tablet controller is a nice feature, it doesn't appear to have the same appeal that the original Wii had.

If you are a consumer who enjoys non-Nintendo video games (i.e. not Mario, Zelda, etc.), enjoys HD video streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), you probably already possess the Xbox 360 or PS3.  This is especially true given the fact those systems were released in 2005 and 2006 respectively.  I'm not sure what the incentive will be to own a Wii U for most consumers.  Add in the unknown price for the Wii U, a likely price drop for Xbox 360/PS3, a set of launch titles (Mass Effect 3, Assassins Creed 3, Ninja Gaiden, etc.) that will also be on Xbox 360/PS3 (or already are), I don't have confidence in the Wii U's wide adoption.

Buying History for Your Organization

Back when I analyzed the market for then free agent Albert Pujols, there was one component I didn't touch on.

Growing up in the St. Louis area and growing up a Cardinals fan, I sometimes take the legacy/history of an organization for granted.  The following are the Cardinals retired numbers excluding managers, owners, and Jackie Robinson, along with it are extra notes: HOF = Hall of Famer, GG = Gold Gloves awards, MVP = Most Valuable Player awards, CY = Cy Young awards, AS = All Star appearances.  The first number on counts is the number of career times with an award/appearance, and the second number is the number of times done as a Cardinal.

#1 - Ozzie Smith (HOF, 13/11 GG, 15/14 AS)
#2 - Red Schoendienst (HOF, 10/9 AS)
#6 - Stan Musial (HOF, 3/3 MVP, 20/20 AS)
#9 - Enos Slaughter (HOF, 10/10 AS)
#14 - Ken Boyer (1/1 MVP, 5/5 GG, 7/7 AS)
#17 - Dizzy Dean (HOF, 1/1 MVP, 4/4 AS)
#20 - Lou Brock (HOF, 6/6 AS)
#42 - Bruce Sutter (HOF, 1/0 CY, 6/2 AS)
#45 - Bob Gibson (HOF, 2/2 CY, 1/1 MVP, 8/8 AS, 9/9 GG)

That's 8 Hall of Famers, 5 MVPs, 2 Cy Youngs, 24 Gold Gloves, and 80 All Star appearances as Cardinals.  It includes a player that would be regarded as legendary (Stan Musial).  Only one is not a Hall of Famer (Ken Boyer), and only one of these players might not be considered most famed for his time with the Cardinals (Bruce Sutter).  It includes two members of the 3000 hit club (Stan Musial, Lou Brock), a man with a legendary 1.12 ERA in 1968 (Bob Gibson), and what most consider the greatest defensive shortstop of all time (Ozzie Smith).

In contrast, lets take a look at the the Houston Astros.

#5 - Jeff Bagwell (1/1 MVP, 4/4 AS, 1/1 GG)
#7 - Craig Biggio (7/7 AS, 4/4 GG)
#24 - Jimmy Wynn (3/1 AS)
#25 - Jose Cruz (2/2 AS)
#32 - Jim Umbricht
#33 - Mike Scott (3/3 AS, 1/1 CY)
#34 - Nolan Ryan (HOF, 8/2 AS)
#40 - Don Wilson (1/1 AS)
#49 - Larry Dierker (2/2 AS)

This is a different group of players.  Nolan Ryan is the only Hall of Famer and he may be more famed as a non-Astro (making more All Star appearances with other teams).  Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio still have shots at the Hall of Fame but it's unlikely anyone else in the group has a shot.  There are fewer MVPs (1 vs 5), Cy Youngs (1 vs 2), Gold Gloves (5 vs 24), and All Star appearances (15 vs. 80).

Now lets look at the Anaheim Angels.

#11 - Jim Fregosi (6/6 AS, 1/1 GG)
#29 - Rod Carew (HOF, 18/6 AS, 1/0 MVP)
#30 - Nolan Ryan (HOF, 8/5 AS)
#50 - Jimmie Reese

Nolan Ryan may be considered by some to be most famed as an Angel, but Rod Carew is most famous as a Twin.  After that, it's not much for the Anaheim retired numbers.  I won't bother counting the various stats, as it's much worse than the Cardinals and generally worse than the Astros.  There's a few players that could have also had their numbers retired (Garret Anderson or Tim Salmon come to mind), but there aren't any MVPs on their resume, just a few All Star appearances.

There are many clubs with similar histories without many Hall of Famers.  So the question is, how much is that kind of history and legacy worth to an organization?  How much is would they be willing to pay for it?

I can see an organization like Anaheim wanting to sign an Albert Pujols to try and add that type of history to the organization.  There are only a few players that come along in baseball history that will amass the number of home runs Albert Pujols will amass.  Barring some catastrophic injury, he's guaranteed to hit 500 (joining only 25 others).  600 home runs is a very good bet (joining only 8 others), and 700 might not be out of the question.  How many players come around in a generation that will get 3000 career hits?  Albert Pujols is very likely to reach that number too.

For an Anaheim and many organizations, having Albert Pujols do that in their uniform would be something very special.

 

 

Albert Pujol's Terrible Start - Should Fans be Worried?

Albert Pujols is off to a terrible start in his Angels career.  As of this writing he's hitting:

.224 BA, .280 OBP, .316 SLG, .596 OPS, 0 HRs

Yup, that's a big zero home runs for the man who's currently 37th all time in home runs.  It's significantly worse than his April 2011 slump where he hit:

.245 BA, .305 OBP, .453 SLG, .758 OPS, 7 HRs

The question is, should Angel's fans be concerned?  It's interesting that there are instances of Hall of Fame caliber players having ridiculous slumps in their careers.

One that comes to mind is Frank Thomas. From 1991 to 1997, Frank Thomas averaged:

.330 BA, .452 OBP, .604 SLG, 1.056 OPS

Then in 1998-1999, Frank Thomas was just not himself.  In 1998 he hit:

.265 BA, .381 OBP, .480 SLG, .861 OPS

and 1999 wasn't that much better.  Then all of a sudden he was back to form in 2000:

.328 BA, .436 OBP, .625 SLG, 1.061 OPS

Injuries and age slowed down Thomas' production the rest of the way, but at the age of 38 he was still able to produce a .926 OPS with 39 home runs in Oakland.  He even put up 26 home runs and a .857 OPS when he was 39 years old in Toronto.

Another player I remember having a year long slump was Mark McGwire.  From 1987 to 1990 he averaged:

.255 BA, .358 OBP, .515 SLG, .873 OPS, 38 HRs

then in 1991 he had a terrible year:

.201 BA, .330 OBP, .383 SLG, .714 OPS, 22 HRs

I remember Mark McGwire sat out the last game of the year, for fear his batting average would dip below .200.  Then he rebounded and was pretty normal again in 1992:

.268 BA, .385 OBP, .585 SLG, .970 OPS

while he had injuries, we know the story of the rest of Mark McGwire's career, culminating with leading the majors in home runs 3 years in a row from 1997-1999.

The last (and most recent) example I could think of was David Ortiz in 2009.  Through the month of May, David Ortiz had this horrific line:

.185 BA, .284 OBP, .287 SLG, .570 OPS, 1 HR

since then, David Ortiz has continued to be the solid DH slugger he always has been.  He finished 2009 with a .794 OPS, had a .899 OPS in 2010, and a .953 OPS in 2011.

The short story of these examples is that great hitters typically do not disappear and fail to hit in the future.  They may have to grind through some injuries as they age and perhaps adjust as they age, but crazy slumps do occur.  Perhaps Pujols is dealing with the pressure of $250M contract or he's having difficulty handling the new Los Angeles media.  Long term though, he should be fine.

Update (5/14/12):

I forgot about the case of one of my favorite players in baseball, El Grande Donkey Adam Dunn. From 2004 to 2010 Dunn averaged:

.253 BA, .381 OBP, .533 SLG, .914 OPS, 40 HRs

He's not Albert Pujols, but those are great slugging numbers for any power hitter to put up.  Then in 2011 he had a line that was embarrassing.

.159 BA, .292 OBP, .277 SLG, .569 OPS, 11 HRs

Adam Dunn is not Albert Pujols, but how does a player go from about a .900 OPS to sub-.600 OPS for a year and getting benched?  Stress over a big contract?  Trouble adjusting to a new league?  Who knows.  What we do know is he's recovering quite nicely in 2012.  Through the time of this writing Dunn is hitting:

.248 BA, .390 OBP, .607 SLG, .997 OPS, 11 HRs

So he appears to be pretty much back to normal.

Update (6/10/12):

I noticed something funny w/ Albert Pujols of late.  On 5/15/12, the Anaheim Angel's hitting coach was fired.

Through 5/15/12 Albert Pujols hit:

.212 BA, .248 OBP, .288 SLG, .536 OPS, 1 HRs

from 5/15 to 6/9, Albert Pujols hit:

.322 BA, .394 OBP, .678 SLG, 1.072 OPS, 8 HRs

coincidence

Mass Effect 3 Ending - Did Bioware drop the ball?

There's been a lot written about fan outrage on the ending of Mass Effect 3. While I had heard about the bad ending prior to playing the game, I didn't find the ending to be that much of an issue. Perhaps my expectations had been lowered, or the more likely case is that I was not as invested into the Mass Effect universe as others. I was curious as to what the fan outrage was over and if the outrage was warranted and started reading up on the topic. As far as I can tell from reading random articles online, there seem to be four main issues with the ending. SPOILERS BELOW.

1. The ending story.

When Shepard discovers the meaning behind the Reapers, the story conclusion is a tad disappointing, however I wouldn't consider it repulsive. I had heard that one review said the ending was very similar to "it was all just a dream". It's certainly not that bad. I recall the ending to one game (I think Grandia 3) where the end boss said his goal was to "destroy love". Now that's an awful ending.

Perhaps the ending could have been tweaked to be similar to the Matrix Reloaded. Shepard could have been told the true nature of the Reapers and chosen to let the Reapers continue their destruction, perhaps in exchange for saving his and his crew's life. That certainly would have made the ending story choice more interesting.

I'm not going to rag on Bioware too much for the story ending. With the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, no ending would please all of the fans. The ending to the story was average and acceptable in my eyes.

2. The ending battle.

I think fans have a legitimate gripe here. After playing the game for 20-30 hours, and taking on various side missions to gain "war assets" for the final battle, the end battle appears to be unchanged based on your decisions. During a final battle in which you are protecting some missiles, you could have had some help from Geth, Quarian, mercenaries, Salarian, etc. forces based on your decisions in the game. Perhaps Grunt, Samara, etc. could have come to help as well. However, none of that happened. It was all just on you.

As a comparison, lets look at another Bioware game, Dragon Age: Origins. In the game, you are similarly trying to ally races/people to battle the Darkspawn. Based on your decisions in the game, you can have extra/different allies help you in the final battle (elves, golems, mages, etc.). It makes your decision making in the game more meaningful.

Given Bioware's history of having the game's story affect the end battle, I would say Bioware did drop the ball here. It is certainly not what people expected of a Bioware game.

3. The ending cinematic.

This is where I think fans are the most irate. Regardless of your decision making at the end, the end cinematic is largely unchanged. There are minor differences, such as the Reapers leaving earth or being destroyed, but 80-90% of the cinematic is identical regardless of your choices.

I wouldn't say Bioware dropped the ball here. In previous games by Bioware (that I can recall), the ending cinematic hasn't been gloriously different either. Even other contemporary games, such as Fallout 3, have had only minor differences in the cinematic ending too. It's hard for me to say that it was something expected by fans.

This isn't to say Bioware couldn't/shouldn't have done better. For example, they could have added an extra 30-60 second cinematic at the very end to show how your decisions affected the world. If you didn't cured the Genophage, perhaps a look 100 years in the future show the Krogan have started a new war with the Salarians. Or perhaps if the Geth and Quarians didn't make peace, a new organic vs. synthetic war occurs.

4. Ending plot holes

Well, I think Bioware definitely messed up here. Especially with the ending crash of the Normandy on another planet. How does your crew end up back on the Normandy after your battle on Earth? Especially given some members of your crew were blasted in the final fight.

So overall, do I think Bioware blow the ending? I wouldn't say they did. Fan expectations were through the roof for this game. I imagine some amount of disappointment was bound to occur. However, Bioware could had a number of embarrassing goofs and definitely should have done better.

I would say the disappointment was similar to the disappointment for Dragon Age 2. A quote from RPG site [1] said, "the discussion about Dragon Age II doesn't need to be "is it good?" - It is - but needs to be "is this what fans wanted from a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins?"

The same can probably be said about Mass Effect 3. The game is really good, that's not in question. But is the ending what fans were expecting? The answer seems to be an emphatic no.

[1] - http://pc.rpgsite.net/reviews/267-dragon-age-ii-review, through Wikipedia

Update 4/11/12:

Ok, I've now learned about the "Indoctrination Theory" for the ending of Mass Effect 3. The theory is really interesting. If it's true, it's actually brilliant, but mean. After giving people a massive game of "choices" and "decisions", you end the game saying, "Aha, you actually did not control your decisions. This is a video game."

Mike Trout & Bryce Harper, the next Andruw Jones & Vladimir Guerrero?

Baseball America's top 100 prospects for 2012 had Bryce Harper and Mike Trout listed as the #1 and #3 prospects in baseball respectively. In 2011, they were listed as the #1 and #2 prospects. The baseball world is carefully watching their progress and comparisons between the two will likely be shared for much of their careers.

I couldn't help but think of the last time there were two highly touted outfield prospects at the top of the charts. Andruw Jones and Vladimir Guerrero were listed #1 and #9 respectively on Baseball America's top 100 prospects in 1996. In 1997 they were #1 and #2. They were similarly compared to as they reached the majors and began to mature. If I recall correctly, Andruw Jones was considered the more well rounded prospect of the two while Vladimir Guerrero was the better hitter. It's not so dissimilar from the comparisons of Mike Trout and Bryce Harper (Harper being the better hitter with Trout being the more rounded player).

Now that they are both approaching the ends of their careers, it's interesting that Jones and Guerrero pretty much met all of the expectations people had of them.

Andruw Jones was an incredible center fielder during his prime, amassing 10 gold gloves. As of this writing, he has 420 career home runs, 1255 RBIs, and a career OPS of .827. He had a quick decline when he entered his 30s, which put him in more of a backup role and may limit his HOF chances, but that's about it.

Vladimir Guerrero did end up the better hitter of the two. As of this writing, he has 449 home runs, 1496 RBIs, a .318 BA, and a .931 OPS. He won an MVP in 2004 and finished in the top ten of MVP voting an additional 5 times. Wow!

Hopefully there will be similar careers for Mike Trout and Bryce Harper.

Update (10/4/12):

Wow, I don't think anyone thought Mike Trout and Bryce Harper's careers would start off like this.

Bryce Harper, at 19, finished the year with 22 home runs, a .270/.340/.477 split, and a 5.0 WAR.  For a 19 year old, that's amazing.  As a comparison, Ken Griffey Jr. had 16 home runs, a .264/.329/.420 split, and a 2.9 WAR in his age 19 rookie year.

Mike Trout was a completely other story.  He's in a dead heat with Miguel Cabrera for the AL MVP in his rookie year.  He finished his rookie year with 30 home runs, a .326/.399/.564 split, and a 10.7 WAR.  Some feel he might be the best player in baseball already.

Apple's Dividend - Why All the Excitement?

So earlier this morning Apple announced a dividend. I don't understand the fuss.

A) It's simply what mature/big companies do. Perhaps Apple's culture and customers had a tough time accepting this? Perhaps it's part of what Tim Cook wants to do as CEO at Apple? Make Apple a bit more mature?

B) The dividend is very average. At $2.65 a quarter, that gives us a yield of 1.7%. It's good, but nothing stunning. By my calculations Walmart is at 2.4%. Microsoft is at 1.9%. GE is at 2.9%. It's higher than Cisco & Oracle, which started issuing dividends not so long ago (both were around 1 percent).

A Young Amy Poehler on Conan O'Brien

A came upon these videos of a young Amy Poehler performing as Andy Richter's little sister on Conan O'brien. I couldn't stop laughing, Poehler is great in these.