Dragonbums said:
Hold on man, your getting too ahead of yourself here. As we have learned these past few months- only a specific group of people are allowed to be catered to personally.
Everyone else are just non gaming whiners out to ruin vidya.
Yes, but I've also learned that it's everyone ELSE who is ruining vidya games for ME. Damn those social justice warriors, demanding not-mes be pandered to.
Colt47 said:
Well, it largely depends on how they handle their IPs and what kind of direction they take with those IPs. For example, bringing back Metroid Prime style games for the Metroid series would likely be a good move since the game type has proven itself, where as trying to do something like Super Mario Sunshine again might not be the best idea. On the hardware end Nintendo also needs it's producers to seriously ask themselves if being one generation in hardware behind Sony and Microsoft is such a good idea. So far the only thing it has done is hurt them since other AAA developers are looking at hardware and realizing releasing on the lower end platform is problematic. If someone owns a PS4 and a Wii U and the same game is released on both consoles for the same price, it makes sense they are going to buy the PS4 version.
People have been saying the best hardware historically has not resulted in the most successful consoles, but times are changing and following such old news in light of how hardware is getting priced now can be disastrous.
But with Sega, they handled their properties the same way before and after they went out of the console business. We have no reason to believe that Nintendo would suddenly change their approach to their games simply because they went out of the hardware business. Their games might actually benefit from the transition. The biggest problem with Sega is that they kept trying to reinvent the turd. Nintendo's made the same quality of games (with, admittedly, some exceptions) whether their hardware's been good (in our estimation) or bad.
The hardware thing is true--somewhat. Sort of. There's a lot of factors, and cost is one of them. By standard logic, Microsoft should have been strong out of the gate--the middle child is often the best seller--except they didn't.
Why? Because one of the biggest deciding factors tends to actually be price. And even that's not set in stone, as the Wii U has demonstrated (in the short run, anyway). Microsoft's got a weaker console that cost more at launch, and when they dropped the price, they managed to get a temporary boost out of it. If the price stays at 350, then the console might actually pull ahead in the long run. Remember, this is what happened with the more expensive PS3. By the end of the console generation, the PS3 was second place and 360 was in dead last, even if only my slight margins. Once the rices become competitive, all bets are off.
I think the tablet is a large factor in putting off the average user, and I don't really care if that's particularly founded, because I'm just going on public perception. People don't go for the best hardware or even the facts. People go on what they've heard and what they think. If people think the tablet is necessary, it might as well be. If people think it's bulky and pointless, it might as well be. If people think there are no games on a console (any console, as it's been claimed for all three current genners), then there might as well be no games in reality.
It's the Liberty Valance effect--when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Or to borrow another line:
"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
xaszatm said:
I think the two of you have reached peak sarcasm here. Perhaps you should stay away from its source. Clearly you should know that we tabletop gamers are the TRUE GAMERS OF THE EARTH!!!
Pffft. This isn't peak sarcasm. I can go harder, and even achieve multiple sarcasm.
