While I do note that as an important part of HISTORY my biggest complaint is the fact they REFUSE to change with the times which is the death of ANY company.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Nintendo Likely to Go Software Only, Says Zynga Board Member
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
No, Nintendo was trotting out games like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, DK, and Kirby to cater towards GAMERS. The NES/SNES/N64 era was back when games were looked down upon as nerd stuff instead of the way its look at as today. The gaming industry today is making billions more than the movie industry. There are more gamers now then there have ever by a massive margin and Nintendo chose to market to the smallest and most narrow market of gamers. Yes they sold the most units, but realistically the Wiis price helped A LOT. The Wii U doesn't have that advantage because of when its coming out.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
As a consumer, I approve. I'd want one console where all games can be played to minimize my expenses.
As a gamer, I realize this would be terrible for the market. Nintendo at least tries to bring innovation to the industry. Microsoft and Sony seem content with giving us the same thing over and over with better graphics.
As a gamer, I realize this would be terrible for the market. Nintendo at least tries to bring innovation to the industry. Microsoft and Sony seem content with giving us the same thing over and over with better graphics.
Hmm. I don't know..
I can't imagine playing Nintendo exclusives without a funky shaped controller.
I can't imagine playing Nintendo exclusives without a funky shaped controller.
This is so wrong.. The N64 is NOT what cemented Nintendo as a powerhouse gaming company. The fact that Nintendo SINGLEHANDEDLY ended the first videogame crash with the NES is what did that. The SNES and N64 are only further examples of Nintendo's staying power.Clearing the Eye said:
Secondly the DS has a gigantic library, with more than a "some great games." In fact, it has almost 4 pages of games with 70+ scores on Metacritic, while the PSP has almost 3. And who on earth judges a console by how many bad games it has? The PS2 had just a much shovelware as the Wii does, and it's widely hailed as one of the greatest consoles ever made, not to mention the best selling console ever made. The DS is not what caused the hardcore market to lose faith in Nintendo, that was the Wii.
Thirdly, the 3DS didn't sell horribly before the price drop, it sold under expectations. In fact, the Vita has sold less in the time it's been out than the 3DS had before the price drop. And 3DS sales didn't pick up just "a little". For example, the 3DS sales for Q1 of the 2012 fiscal year are over 160% better than they were for Q1 2011.
Fourthly, don't say the Wii disenfranchised hardcore gamers. This generation of consoles disenfranchised hardcore gamers. Look at E3, look at the amount of Kinect shovelware, look at the Move shovelware, look at the Wii shovelware. Look at how Microsoft is trying to make the Xbox a media device rather than a game console, or how the PS3 is being advertised as doing "everything". The Wii has lots of great, hardcore games. Sure, there aren't as many brown-and-bloom shooters or chest-high wall simulators for the Wii, but guns don't make games hardcore. I'll admit it doesn't have as many hardcore games as the PS3 or 360, but don't say it's a casual console, because it's not.
So excuse me for questioning the accuracy of your prediction about the Wii U. The prediction of someone who seems to have no idea about why Nintendo has staying power, has no idea about how the gaming community has received past generations of console, has no idea about the sales figures of current gen consoles, and is just some random person on a gaming forum.
Yeah, like I said, it's not the list I would personally put together. And mine would be longer, for whatever it's worth.D Moness said:
I just wish I'd find the time to actually play my Wii games. I have at least a dozen nearly or completely unplayed ones, but that list is dwarfed by my triple-digit PC backlog.
To clarify my meaning of Nintendo refusing too change with the times. Refers to the fact that the SOFTWARE hasn't changed substantially even though the hardware has. The only thing that has changed is how you play NOT what you play. I haven't seen a major change in their I . P since the 90's so everyone mentioning this IS PROVING MY POINT. As a way to illustrate my point the only major difference in game design between the original super mario brothers and the new super mario brothers ( aside from a very slight graphic upgrade ) is the hardware you play it on slight buggy motion control. A gimmick all it's competitor's tried to copy only to realize it is ( or was ) a short term success at best. If you don't believe me look at the sales of Nintendo Wii a half way into it's life span there is a huge drop from it's release date. While failing to bring any new or interesting software to the table except for well established titles already within the ownership of Nintendo corp. since the 80's and 90's. The ONLY people that will argue otherwise are fanboys caught up within those titles of years past. Yes some if not most of us played these titles but without looking to the future of gaming , gaming will have no future. The only reason to look at the past is to see past mistakes and avoid making them again as well as nostalgia which some people can take too far. THIS IS MY FINALE RESPONSE TO THIS!!!!j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I think "core gamers" is the big disclaimer there, as if "core gamers" is even a concept anymore, much less a demographic that every console needs to survive.Crono1973 said:
Casual gamers are a huge, previously untapped market in console gaming, and the Wii proved that you don't need people like us to carry a game company. A sale is a sale, and if Nintendo can get casual players (and fans with the disposal income to buy a whole console solely for Mario and Zelda) to keep buying systems, then I don't see the gravy train stopping anytime soon.
Nice try. Not every game that Sony publishes is triple AAA. You seem not to know what AAA means in gaming. There have been a lot of games published by Sony that aren't AAA games. Dark Cloud. Ico. Shadow of The Colossus. The Legend of Legaia games. The Mark of Kri games. Triple A games means that LOTS of money is sunk into the game before hand, including advertisement, which Demon's Souls never had until the internet was buzzing about it after its Japanese release. That and your info is off. Demon's Souls was published by Sony for its Japanese release only. North American version was released by Atlus and everywhere else was published by Namco Bandai.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Again highly doubt that. Mario was made as the next technological step in what gaming could be. Really think of what games were veiwed as back when Mario Bros was out. It was in a decade where not everyone had video game consoles and video games were viewed as stuff for nerds. Most kids that you seem to think Nintendo was targeting were outside playing tag and tossing footballs around. Mario also showed up in the 1983 video game crash. Most consoles that came out from then until the NES failed. Not really the prime time be marketing video games to anyone, let alone kids. But look at the technological leap in terms of Pac-Man and ET and the Atari to what Miyamoto did with Mario Bros on the same damn console. It made games like Asteroids look like crap graphics and function wise. It attracted people fascinated with what games were becoming. There wasn't really a kids market withing gaming to attract. You were not going to be getting action figures out of kids hands (Barbie dolls for girls) and replacing them with controllers during that era. It wasn't cost effective for parents to buy their kids plastic men and die cast cars rather than electronics that cost 3-4 times as much. Games were for nerds. If you weren't spending money on sports equipment as a teenager in the 80s, it was video games that got the money, and there were a lot less nerds back then.
I assume that you calling WOW a casual game was a typo, or you've never played an MMO. That and while COD has its casual audience, there are still much, much more core players on it. The success of COD Elite shows that. Here's the thing with your logic. You assume that because Angry Birds sells well on the iPhone that the casual market is bigger. Thing is most of the revenue comes from the core games. Fallout 3, New Vegas,Skyrim, Oblivion, Gear of Wars, God of War, MAKE THE MONEY. You can say that casual games have been dominating the market, but not on consoles they haven't. Smartphone gaming and Social media gaming is where you're seeing this happen, granted there are next to no core experiences on either of those platforms to compete. It still stands that core games make the most cash. Hell, Halo and COD both have had and currently are the biggest entertainment releases of all time. Higher than any movie or PPV event. No casual market ANYTHING can say that. Angry Birds is big, but its been cash cowed to the point where its developer Rovio has done nothing else since release 3 years ago. Hell Zynga's casual gaming success story was shattered when 2 years after Farmville came out they showed a 90% drop in profits. Casual gamers are not great repeat customers and the Wii U will show this.
And to be honest, the smartest move Nintendo made wasn't making a console that targeted casual gamers, as shown by the way it hurt their 3rd party developer relations worse than ever. It was making the Wii the cheapest console on the block with a unique feature that was the smart move. The Wii is the fad console. The Beyblade of electronic gaming. Not even Nintendo has had much use if the sub par motion controls they promoted so heavily in their own 1st party games, and when they did, it was minimal at best.
The $600 dollar fiasco of the PS3? The same $600 dollar fiasco that saw PS3 and 360 sales going neck and neck with the only advantage going to the 360's 1 year jump on the market due to its release time? Come on now. I highly doubt that the Wii U will be priced cheaper than the PS3 and 360 now. I can't see Nintendo selling the Wii U at cheaper than the $300 that the standard PS3 is at now. Not with that tablet controller attached to it. It will be the most expensive console on the market for a year, maybe TWO before the other 2 of the Big Three put something out, then it'll just look like crap compared to the new console when they come. And to be honest, I can't see Sony and MS missing the chance to announce a price cut to hurt the Wii U launch. That'd be stupid not to. The Wii U is supposed to come out this year and we don't have a price yet? The November pre Christmas pounding is closer than we all think and the fact that there's no price out for this console means 2 things.
1. It's not coming out this year.
2.They're holding out until a price cut announcement seems imminent from the competition.
Nintendo's not going to risk putting out an expensive console so frivolously like they did with the 3DS, but they may not have a choice if they want to profit off of the Wii U.
Nintendo is about to release a new console after coming off of an absolutely crushing domination of the seventh generation; not to mention they're still the handheld king. Where exactly does that indicate that they're about to jump to software only?
I don't foresee the Wii U ruling the 8th generation (money's on Microsoft for that) but I think they'll still continue to do solidly.
I don't foresee the Wii U ruling the 8th generation (money's on Microsoft for that) but I think they'll still continue to do solidly.
I wouldn't call losing support from a decent amount of 3rd party publishers crushing the 7th generation. The software sales went to the PC/360/PS3, easily. They sold the most units but were the only ones to lose money off of their console in the end, the other 2 of the Big Three made profit off of their consoles (although they both did struggle). And we can't be calling Nintendo the handheld king anymore. We can no longer ignore the influence of smartphone gaming in that market. Nintendo's Wii U could take the company either way.RatRace123 said:
Zynga board member. Former EA executive.
...Oh sorry I fell asleep for a moment there, were you trying to explain the news?
...Oh sorry I fell asleep for a moment there, were you trying to explain the news?