Nintendo Says 3DS Beats App Store With "Quality"

[xPixelatedx]

That said, Moffit's point is clear: whatever advantage the App Store has in the amount of content, it can't compare in terms of gaming excellence.

That is a sentiment I completely agree with. You get what you pay for, and while it is cool to buy a $1-$4 appstore game and find original ideas in it that no AAA game developer would have or take risk on, the games themselves are pretty weak. Usually not by the fault of the developers, just the interface. The interface of the i-devices is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life, at least in relation to playing video games. Even the many variations of the DS kept button layouts. Whats worse is it completely crushes anything worthwhile an app developer could make by it's limitations. I really try to get into games like Infinity Blade, which is a fun distraction... but ultimately you are just swiping your finger left and right with 'muddy' response, at best. There is no real control happening, it gets more and more boring the more you play it and realize you are just watching a pretty video while occasionally giving the main character a "suggestion" on what they should be doing.
Don't get me started on games ported over, like pacman or megaman... WOW. If there was ever a good argument against iphone interface games, it's stuff like this. Amazing games with amazing experiences you are not allowed to enjoy because the interface just isn't there.

But how many people own an ipad/phone/pod compared to a 3DS?

By that logic, how many people own a computer of some kind vs. an xbox? Does that mean the xbox is doing poorly?

ipad/phone/pod are multi-use devices that just happen to be able to play games to. When someone buys a game system, they don't choose an iphone over a vita or 3DS. They get the iPhone to make phone calls, take pictures, listen to music, etc. It just HAPPENS to play games. Computers just happen to play games to, but when Microsoft or Sony look at their respective console sales, they don't lump in computer sales to evaluate how well they did. You can't really compare your specialty item, with it's one very specific and intended use, up against something that will, objectively speaking, always have a wider market because it has multiple functions. And that wider market truly is a different market, because it is filled with quite a lot of people who had little to no interest in games when they were deciding on their purchase.

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

I'm definitely with you on this one. I wish Nintendo or Sony would just have the guts to create a fully-fledged handheld/phone hybrid. Sony's attempt with the Xperia Play was half-hearted at best and never went anywhere. Preferably Android-based, and maybe with a dual-OS setup that makes it possible to just shut off most of the smartphone functions when you want all resources dedicated to a game.

I own an Xperia Play, and I love it! That said, it is disappointing how much Sony didn't even put up a fight for it to succeed.
The price was steep on launch (hey, it is a Sony device...), but what really killed it was LACK OF SUPPORT (as always, I guess...).
Sony failed to put Playstation 1 classics for it, develop games for it, put any franchises on it.
It didn't even had a decent dedicated marketplace (Play store is good, but it is shared by too many devices). Why the Xperia Play didn't have access to the PSN, or even an simplified version of it defies logic.
It was the ONLY gaming-focused smartphone on the market. So much potential gone to waste!
Luckily, the modding community transformed it in the retrogamer's paradise that it is now. Yes, the hackers even gave it the PS1 support that Sony didn't delivered.

Nonetheless, even though Xperia Play had disappointing sales, I am under the impression that sony's smartphones sell poorly IN GENERAL. I wouldn't be surprised if the Xperia Play ended up being one of the bestselling Sony smartphones in a decade...

And on the console side of things, I wouldn't be opposed to a partnership between Nintendo and Microsoft. Microsoft know the western market, whilst Nintendo have it easier in Japan. Microsoft excel at the practical stuff like online functions, and Nintendo know how to think outside the box. (I'd rather not have to pay for basic online services, though, so Xbox Live would have to be reworked.)

This already exists! It is called a Sony Playstation.

 

[JediMB]

Nonetheless, even though Xperia Play had disappointing sales, I am under the impression that sony's smartphones sell poorly IN GENERAL. I wouldn't be surprised if the Xperia Play ended up being one of the bestselling Sony smartphones in a decade...

Well, I'm under the impression that Sony smartphones, as a consequence of the previous partnership with Ericsson, are very popular in Scandinavia... and the South American market.

I was dead set on getting an Xperia Play, but decided to wait for more PS1 titles to be released. I'm glad I waited, since it never actually happened.

This already exists! It is called a Sony Playstation.

I'm just saying that on the business side of things a partnership between Microsoft and Nintendo could be highly lucrative for both parties.

In addition to getting Microsoft's third-party support and Nintendo's first-party titles on the same platform.

EDIT: And maybe Nintendo's traditional hardware quality to compensate for Microsoft's habit of putting together machines that spontaneously combust[footnote]slight exaggeration[/footnote].

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

Well, I'm under the impression that Sony smartphones, as a consequence of the previous partnership with Ericsson, are very popular in Scandinavia... and the South American market.

I was dead set on getting an Xperia Play, but decided to wait for more PS1 titles to be released. I'm glad I waited, since it never actually happened.

Well, I live in Brazil, and the ONLY Xperia I have seen in a final consumer's hand (of course we see them in stores) is my own. It is even hard to get accesories or replacement parts... I can tell you that, at least in Brazil, Sony Ericsson doesn't seem to hold an considerable market share...

Don't know about the rest of South America, though. But the cellphone market changed a lot recently... Did you get that impression after the smartphone market get into lockdown between Samsung and Apple (with an very occasional Nokia)?

I'm just saying that on the business side of things a partnership between Microsoft and Nintendo could be highly lucrative for both parties.

In addition to getting Microsoft's third-party support and Nintendo's first-party titles on the same platform.

EDIT: And maybe Nintendo's traditional hardware quality to compensate for Microsoft's habit of putting together machines that spontaneously combust

I don't think it is a bad idea on paper (Nintendo's stellar first party coupled with Microsoft's third party support).
I just don't think that it would end up like that.
See, Microsoft has (IMHO, hoping not to start a flame war) bad consumer policies. They like money, and they throw evil business practices if they think they can get away with it.
Paying for online. Ads on the dashboard. Harshly releasing an broken console. And even the whole "screw real games, this Kinect is A GOLD MINE!!" recent policy. I don't like them.

Sony is as stupid as it is incompetent. It makes bad decisions, it can't provide services that make up for the "premium price" they ask. But I try to compromise, because they like games and they do things for gamers.
Microsoft only likes "them monies". (again, from my angle. #dealwithit)

I think Nintendo, under Microsoft, wouldn't BE Nintendo. Super Mario Kinect would NOT be Super Mario Galaxy.
I may be wrong, but what I said is not unprecedented ... See what happened to RARE. (which is the closest thing we had on the hypothesis "Microsoft buying Nintendo")

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

And I disagree with "traditional Nintendo hardware quality".

Yes, my Game Cube had an horrible fall (ironically, it felt like a dice) and survived completely unscathed.
And my Wii also had his share of long road trips and still ticking.

But I can't stand how cheaply looking is Nintendo's recent hardware. Yes, I know, it IS cheap, it has to be cheap, and it just ends up showing.
But I couldn't stand to look at my (non XL) 3DS. Those asymetrical screens. That cheap plastic D-Pad. That poor quality touchscreen. That old design.
And that Wii U GamePad? So much plastic and so little of that ugly screen (in pictures it doesn't seem that bad). Doesn't look like an IPad or a Galaxy Note. It looks like a Etch-a-sketch.

It was acceptable in the early 2000's, but today, with smartphones and tablets dangling from trees, I find Nintendo's hardware painful to the sight.

 

[JediMB]

I think Nintendo, under Microsoft, wouldn't BE Nintendo. Super Mario Kinect would NOT be Super Mario Galaxy.
I may be wrong, but what I said is not unprecedented ... See what happened to RARE. (which is the closest thing we had on the hypothesis "Microsoft buying Nintendo")

(Fun trivia: Microsoft actually approached Nintendo about the possibility of them canceling the Gamecube to help design the Xbox instead.)

Anyway, I was suggesting an equal partnership; not an acquisition by Microsoft. An acquisition would be all kinds of horrible.

And RARE was already but a shell of its former self when Microsoft acquired the company, since a lot of people left both after they made GoldenEye and once Nintendo decided to sell. A lot of the GoldenEye people work at Crytek UK (formerly Free Radical Design) nowadays.

 

[JediMB]

And I disagree with "traditional Nintendo hardware quality".

Well, I was specifically referring to the robustness of their hardware. Hence the reference to Microsoft hardware's notorious failures. I own every Nintendo console from the NES to the Wii, plus a fair number of handhelds, and they're all still fully functional... with the N64 controllers' analogue sticks as the only exception.

I largely agree on that the Wii U controller feels cheap, and that there were more than a few unfortunate design choices made with the 3DS. Part of why I don't own either of them yet.