The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Nintendo] The best January the Wii U has ever had

AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arseI pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
edited February 2013 in Debate and/or Discourse
Imminent to the E3 expo arriving the next few weeks, Nintendo has announced that they will be unveiling their latest home console, for now dubbed the "Wii 2," the "Wii HD," or "Project Cafe." Naturally, speculation is high, and likely in no small part to the faction of relatively disappointed gamers who felt that the Wii underdelivered on its promise. Nintendo hasn't said much on the subject, other than confirming that the new console will be "more powerful than the competition," and be capable of HD output.

While rumors swirl about things as far-fetched as onboard Blu-Ray devices and touch-capacitive remotes, I'm reminded of my own dissatisfaction with the Wii experience. I felt that given the device's similar release date with the 360 and PS3, the lack of HD output was fairly glaring, not to mention its inability to use its online capabilities in any meaningful way, or use its DVD drive to, you know, play DVDs.

As well, over time I became more and more annoyed that it seemed like the Wii entrenched itself solely as a first-party machine, and sales figures have come to support that assertion. The overwhelming majority of Wii game sales are attributed to franchises owned or licensed solely by Nintendo, such as Mario Bros, Zelda, Pokemon, and Metroid, or peripheral-specific titles also first-party in nature (like Wii Fit). It seems that these feelings were shared by many developers, who left the Wii console over complaints of difficult translative coding across the platform, as well as sluggish sales compared to ports on other consoles.


So Nintendo would have us believe that their new machine will outperform the competition, but is that something we should believe? Such a statement seems to belie the feeling that Nintendo still feels that Microsoft and Sony are their rivals in the field, but is that even true? And should Nintendo really be trying to go head-to-head with these companies after the abject failure of cross-platform titles on the Wii?

I feel that Nintendo needs to seriously take a moment to actualize its imperative. "What does Nintendo want to do?" That's the question that needs asked. Because if Nintendo wants to go up against Sony and X-Box, they're facing a steep uphill climb, and merely offering HD output won't be good enough. The competition already has things like HD output, as well as blu-ray capability, deep DLC homestores with streaming media options, and even 3D capability. If Nintendo's new console showed up tomorrow with all that in tow, they'd still be 5 years behind the curve.


Which is why I don't think whatever new product will be unveiled soon will be all that impressive. But I do think it will be cheap, and Nintendo has always keenly followed their bottom line. The Wii was little more than a gussied-up Gamecube with bluetooth remotes and marginal online ability; The Wii HD (or whatever) will probably be little more than a duded-up Wii with better performance and increased online support.

Or maybe it won't be that at all. Maybe Nintendo will surprise us by actually sacking up and taking the fight to the competition. Maybe they'll begin to appreciate their long-neglected 18-and-over market and position themselves, through technological power and innovation, to be the must-have console of the next generation, regaining the dominance they've slowly given up since they first failed to strongly respond to the PS1.



But I doubt it.

Atomika on
«13456799

Posts

  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Yeah you've pretty much argued my theory.

    The reason nintendo are doing this is a gambit, because they've woken up to the realisation that the Wii game line up is completely and totally made up of shovelware, with only a few titles actually being worth the time or interest. Meanwhile, the likes of ps3 and xbox 360 are starting to stretch into the motion business, supplying not only the same entertainment, but graphically better. This helps both to catch public attention and also hook developers. After all, no developer wants to make a game, then have to completely and totally strip it down to fit it onto a yesteryear console.

    The question now is as to whether that's such a bright idea. Do they continue down the road of supplying to a casual market, or do they throw themselves headlong into the big boys sector, on, let's face it, fairly childish first party game titles.

    Zelda lovers will kill me in 5...4...3...2...

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Good game design.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • KilroyKilroy Cannonball blastin'Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Good game design.

    You snark, but I know what you mean.

    The Wii really blew its wad within the first few months of being on the market. Wii Sports, the friggin' game that came with the system, was basically the most innovative use of the Wiimote ever facilitated for the console.

    Upon the success of his "Three Little Pigs" Silly Symphony, Walt Disney was asked when he would make another short with the famous pigs, to which he responded, "You can't top pigs with pigs." I look at things like Mario Soccer, Wii Sports Resort, and the MotionPlus adapter, and think, "Wow, pigs on pigs."


    But Nintendo has something that is an X factor not shared by its competition, and that's the brand awareness of its first-party titles. Though it seems outside the realm of possibility, is it possible that Nintendo's entire market strategy can be summed up by flooding each new console with as much first-party content as the market allows before returns diminish, and then scrambling to build a new console to flood with first-party titles, wash, rinse, and repeat?

  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    edited April 2011



    But Nintendo has something that is an X factor not shared by its competition, and that's the brand awareness of its first-party titles. Though it seems outside the realm of possibility, is it possible that Nintendo's entire market strategy can be summed up by flooding each new console with as much first-party content as the market allows before returns diminish, and then scrambling to build a new console to flood with first-party titles, wash, rinse, and repeat?

    Yes. It's called the ninendo ds!

    Buuuurrrrnnnnn.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    What should we not expect?

    We should not expect them to not have another go round on all the standard tired franchises yet again.



    I'm curious where they'll go with this Wii-Remote type thing. Frankly, it has remained, after years, still mostly a gimmick. I have trouble thinking of many games where you couldn't replace the waggle with a button press and be kinder to my wrists and better on gameplay.

  • SlicerSlicer Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I'm hoping to see an end to friend codes but seeing as how the 3DS has them, I'm not going to get my hopes up.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Actually, whoops, I missed the "not." I mean we can expect good game design. Though I'm one of the four people apparently who liked TP.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    What should we not expect?

    We should not expect them to not have another go round on all the standard tired franchises yet again.

    Yes, the new console should be called the MZM: Mario-Zelda-Metroid. That's all we buy it for, anyway.

    I'm curious where they'll go with this Wii-Remote type thing. Frankly, it has remained, after years, still mostly a gimmick. I have trouble thinking of many games where you couldn't replace the waggle with a button press and be kinder to my wrists and better on gameplay.

    Indeed. The thesis argument and rationalization for the Wii's entire existence has yet to be justified.

    As well as you, I'm curious to see what they bring to the table in the next go-round. Like I said above, if they're bringing HD/3D output, a streamlined online service, and advanced motion-control technology . . . . . they're still behind the curve.

    Which they might actually be okay with. It's not like Nintendo has ever shied away from basically boiling their sales pitch down to, "It's not all that great, but hey, here's some Mario games!"

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I must have stepped in a time warp back to 2006, because I can't possibly be seeing the same old tired arguments about how the Wii doesn't play DVD's, only has first party/shovelware games, and is a disappointment because it didn't 'beat' microsoft and sony in the completely unimportant hearts of the fanboys, instead of in the quality and sales of their games.

    I still haven't bought a mario or metroid game for my Wii, and only got zelda because I had to buy 6 games when I got it right after launch, and I'd call it quite a solid success. I have several first party, third party, and downloadable games I've enjoyed on it. Whoooooops!

  • ExrielExriel Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    What should we not expect?

    Indeed. The thesis argument and rationalization for the Wii's entire existence has yet to be justified.

    Gonna have to disagree with that. Sales figures and the obvious rush with which Sony and MS moved to put out buggy analogs seem to suggest that motion control is pretty much here to stay.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Video games seem incredibly derivative anyways, so I don't really see or care about the point that nintendo focuses too much on their own properties.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • MattnyxMattnyx Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Exriel wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    What should we not expect?

    Indeed. The thesis argument and rationalization for the Wii's entire existence has yet to be justified.

    Gonna have to disagree with that. Sales figures and the obvious rush with which Sony and MS moved to put out buggy analogs seem to suggest that motion control is pretty much here to stay.

    Amazing isn't it? Millions of people have purchased and enjoyed the system's offerings, yet some still think that it's very "existence has yet to be justified". Sad.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Exriel wrote: »
    Indeed. The thesis argument and rationalization for the Wii's entire existence has yet to be justified.

    Gonna have to disagree with that. Sales figures and the obvious rush with which Sony and MS moved to put out buggy analogs seem to suggest that motion control is pretty much here to stay.

    From a financial perspective? It certainly looks that way. They definitely made Nintendo a shitload of money this generation. I'm curious to see if motion controls can still spur sales after the newness has worn off.

    But from a gameplay perspective? I'd say they haven't justified themselves all that much. They've seemed to be less a revolution and more like the rumblepack. Cool, good for immersion in a few select spots (much narrower for motion control then rumble actually), but nothing amazing.

    Some games have taken advantage of them, but most haven't at all. They just replaced one button with waggle and called it a day.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I'm curious how much brand loyalty really factors into console sales.

    Because, I really don't give a damn about Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony, or anyone other manufacturer for that matter. All I care about is the technology, what that technology means to me as an end user (i.e. gamer), and what kind of developers the technology might attract. Though I think that last bit really has a lot more to do with the technology itself rather than anything to do with brand loyalty either.

    So, for me, this question is moot. Either the technology will outperform the competition or it won't. If they say it will, why not believe them, at least for now? It's not like it's a fudgeable thing. "Outperform" in this context is very quantifiable. If anything, I'd take that statement at face value before I'd factor their past into this. Did they EVER claim that the Wii or NDS or, well, anything would "outperform" the competition? I don't believe so. Because it would have been a lie.

    Why assume they are lying now?

    steam_sig.png
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

    Exactly. Saying it will outperform last generation consoles is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. If it didn't, I'd be shocked. It's not a relevant comparison.

    What it has to be measured again is the NEXT Sony/MS consoles. MS, at least, is releasing their next entry in the next year or 2 afaik. Will Nintendo again be the cheaper but less powerful of the 3? That would be the real question.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

    Well. The 3DS doesn't outperform the PSP, does it? I admit I'm not too familiar with the 3DS tech, so I'm not sure how much more powerful it is over the NDS, but in terms of processing power, the PSP is way above the NDS and the NGP will increase that margin quite a bit. What the PSP and NGP do not have, however, is glasses-less 3D, which doesn't make the system "outperform" any other system, but it certainly is an innovative enough tangent to keep them raking in the cashola.

    So, yes, I believe Nintendo has proven they know how to keep a foothold on the market with lateral innovation and I believe it would be possible to do so again if they really wanted to. I just believe that "it will outperform the competition" is a very simple, direct, and literal statement and should be taken as such. It implies that the new Nintendo system is being oriented as a competitor to Microsoft and Sony's stuff.

    steam_sig.png
  • Nova_CNova_C Social Justice Haruspex Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    When I heard about this I had to laugh. The day before the rumor mill swung into full steam ahead with the Wii2 I read an article estimating 2013 before we see any new consoles. :P I wonder how MS and Sony will respond....I'm happy with my 360 and don't really desire another generation at this point.

    As far was what not to expect? That Nintendo doesn't act like total cocks like Sony always has and Microsoft has started to and ship an HD console without any goddamn HD ready cables. What. The. Shit. HD out of the box my ass you fuckers!

    My one fervant wish that I'm sure will NOT be granted is that the new console has both access to the virtual console library and is back compatible with GC titles. That's what I wanted a Wii for and I never did get one.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm curious how much brand loyalty really factors into console sales.

    I don't think there's a lot of specific loyalty, despite what the flame wars might tell you. I own both a PS3 and a Wii, as well as a GBA, and the only reason I don't have an X-Box is that I can't justify the cost seeing as how I would only want it for Fable and Mass Effect.

    However, the sales figures don't lie, and Wii's sales are almost entirely relegated to first-party titles and peripherals.
    Did they EVER claim that the Wii or NDS or, well, anything would "outperform" the competition? I don't believe so. Because it would have been a lie.

    Why assume they are lying now?

    No official statement, just "insider source" scuttlebutt.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Are we saying that Wii having fewer sales than xbox and ps3 means it clearly isn't as good a platform but that it having millions of sales doesn't mean it has any assumable quality?

    sig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

    Well. The 3DS doesn't outperform the PSP, does it? I admit I'm not too familiar with the 3DS tech, so I'm not sure how much more powerful it is over the NDS, but in terms of processing power, the PSP is way above the NDS and the NGP will increase that margin quite a bit. What the PSP and NGP do not have, however, is glasses-less 3D, which doesn't make the system "outperform" any other system, but it certainly is an innovative enough tangent to keep them raking in the cashola.

    So, yes, I believe Nintendo has proven they know how to keep a foothold on the market with lateral innovation and I believe it would be possible to do so again if they really wanted to. I just believe that "it will outperform the competition" is a very simple, direct, and literal statement and should be taken as such. It implies that the new Nintendo system is being oriented as a competitor to Microsoft and Sony's stuff.

    I think you are making a mistake here with your comparison though. The handheld market just isn't the same in respects to performance. Plus, Nintendo basically owns the handheld market anyway, which causes further distortions.

    Performance is more of an issue with home consoles though. And there's also the whole tech factor, which may also be what he was referring to. Older technology gets expensive.

    I think there's a good chance "it will outperform the competition" is marketing-speak for "It won't be just a small upgrade over the Wii. It will actually have power and fancy graphics this time!" to counter-act the sort of general idea about the Wii being underpowered.

  • Nova_CNova_C Social Justice Haruspex Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Oh, and I feel compelled to add one thing: I am convinced that Nintendo looked at PS3's motion control solution and went "Meh", but when Kinect basically steamrolled everything they went into panic mode. :P

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Are we saying that Wii having fewer sales than xbox and ps3 means it clearly isn't as good a platform but that it having millions of sales doesn't mean it has any assumable quality?

    Welcome to the fanboy zone.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

    Exactly. Saying it will outperform last generation consoles is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. If it didn't, I'd be shocked. It's not a relevant comparison.

    In all fairness, in terms of graphics and potential, the Wii didn't outperform the 360 or the PS3, which were all released more or less concurrently. Not that the Wii even tried, mind you, but there you are.


    I don't think Nintendo can get away with just an HD Wii upgrade, especially if it means buying all new games, but who knows? I'm consistently surprised by the way Nintendo continues to provide innovative and new gaming experiences, but I also was around when the Virtual Boy came out, so Nintendo's penchant for "innovating" without any clear mandate or justification isn't unremarked upon by me.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.

    Yeah, from a business point of view, it's a huge success, no ifs ands or buts. (hehehe, butts)

    The question is whether they can replicate that success again. Will they go for another "gimick"? Or will we see "The Wii, but super-powerful this time!" to try and hit that same gravy train again? Or something else.

    shryke wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it even economically viable at this point to make a console that doesn't outperform the 360 and PS3?

    Exactly. Saying it will outperform last generation consoles is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. If it didn't, I'd be shocked. It's not a relevant comparison.

    In all fairness, in terms of graphics and potential, the Wii didn't outperform the 360 or the PS3, which were all released more or less concurrently. Not that the Wii even tried, mind you, but there you are.

    I'd heard the statement as "the new Nintendo console will outperform the 360 and the PS3" which is what I was referring to.

  • Nova_CNova_C Social Justice Haruspex Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.

    Yes. None of the console makers evaluate the performance of their product based on user opinions (Although they can use that for marketing). It's how much money does it make. The Wii is a massive success for Nintendo. They made bank off it. Now, though, it's completely obsolete by virtue of the products the competition has released and they have no leg to stand on regarding the future of the Wii.

    So new console time. And if there's one thing Nintendo has always managed to do, it's make a successful console. The N64 and GC still made a profit, even if they weren't market dominant. This notion that a company is only successful if it releases the absolute very best is something that doesn't really fly outside of the tech industry.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.

    Yes. None of the console makers evaluate the performance of their product based on user opinions (Although they can use that for marketing). It's how much money does it make. The Wii is a massive success for Nintendo. They made bank off it. Now, though, it's completely obsolete by virtue of the products the competition has released and they have no leg to stand on regarding the future of the Wii.

    So new console time. And if there's one thing Nintendo has always managed to do, it's make a successful console. The N64 and GC still made a profit, even if they weren't market dominant. This notion that a company is only successful if it releases the absolute very best is something that doesn't really fly outside of the tech industry.

    AFAIK Nintendo never sells at a loss so they basically can't not make a profit on their consoles as long as they sell even just kinda ok. It makes the fact that they made a profit kind of a silly point.

    The question most people are asking I think is can they make a sales-dominating console again.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Just to be clear here when you use the terms "older" and "younger" what you're talking about is the length of time the people in those two categories have been playing games and thus actually meaning casual gamers vs more "tradtional" (not the term either but my brain is failing me) gamers, right?

    sigtk.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Except Nintendo is a business. So sales data kind of matter. They could care less who's buying their games.

    Oh, I understand completely, and they have a bottom line to watch. But right now the Wii is basically inert, and didn't even release a single game this quarter.

    But it's kind of like (to continue the metaphor) applauding the studio that made the Twilight movies for being so profitable. It's the fight between "continued customer appeal" and "novelty," and it seems that with the Wii and 3DS that Nintendo has clearly chosen "novelty" as their prime market motivator.

    Which is to say that isn't the worst thing. It's profitable. But it also drops hard, so the only way to maintain revenues is to constantly provide newer, more novel experiences. Sony and Microsoft seem to feel that those experiences should be mostly software-based, whereas Nintendo seems to prefer hardware changes. My personal opinion is that software is a lot easier to take a chance on than new hardware, so I don't particularly care to be asked to go out and drop $200 on whatever new way Nintendo thinks you should hold a controller to play the same first-party titles again.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find using the sales numbers or Nintendo's profits as a defense for its success is very similar to arguing that Twilight is a worthy entry in the annals of literature because it sold a lot of copies. Likewise, the sales figures for the Wii say quite literally nothing in regards to how well it made use of its unorthodox control system, or how much people enjoyed using it after the initial novelty wore off.


    Much, much more to the point of the OP: is the business model of the Wii, i.e. "last-gen tech with a twist," something we should anticipate with the new console? Is Nintendo really going to try to appeal to the older gaming market, or will it keep "innovating" and market toward its younger, less-demanding base?

    Just to be clear here when you use the terms "older" and "younger" what you're talking about is the length of time the people in those two categories have been playing games and thus actually meaning casual gamers vs more "tradtional" (not the term either but my brain is failing me) gamers, right?

    I think so. By "older," I mean people who have been gaming (and continue to game) for several years, whereas "newer" gamers I refer to younger people who are more casual with their gaming. Most people in the 18-45 demographic aren't new to gaming by a long shot, and generally have fairly specific tastes in what they're looking to play.

  • Nova_CNova_C Social Justice Haruspex Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Perhaps, but we're heading into a bit of a new environment. I highly doubt Sony and Microsoft will be releasing a new console anywhere close to the same time as Nintendo, which means that Nintendo will have the only eighth generation console out for who knows how long.

    But with the Wii being what it was, what that new console actually will be is up in the air. Do they mean to compete directly with the 360 and PS3? Or is Nintendo throwing down the gauntlet and challenging Sony and MS to come up with their own new consoles?

    More than anything, considering how MS responded to the PS3 I hope to see similar marketing hijinks. That's my best case scenario from this.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    The question most people are asking I think is can they make a sales-dominating console again.

    Indeed. Or better yet, a console that comparably competes with the PS3 and 360 (or whatever next-gen machines) in the same format, which the Wii decidedly does not.


    The two-part question is:
    - Should Nintendo really treat Sony and Microsoft as direct competition, and if so,
    - What do they need to do to accomplish that?


    In that, I find myself wondering that if Nintendo fails to up its caliber of performance and instead opts for a more insular experience, is that something I want to be part of? I'm not sure I do, really.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I liked my Wii, gave it away to the parents of a friend of mine (back when the Wii was new and hard to get ahold of) in a ploy to get them into gaming (and it seems to have worked.)

    I'd have bought a replacement except that I've been far too busy with work to play games much. I haven't turned on my 360 since playing GTA IV.

    So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?

    Erik
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    @Ross: Ok, I just wanted to make sure that you weren't intentionally making the "olol kidtendo" argument :P

    sigtk.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Perhaps, but we're heading into a bit of a new environment. I highly doubt Sony and Microsoft will be releasing a new console anywhere close to the same time as Nintendo, which means that Nintendo will have the only eighth generation console out for who knows how long.

    The recent scuttlebutt has the new Nintendo out in 2012, with Sony and MS following up in 2014.

    As a PS3 owner, I'm in no hurry for a new console right now, and I can think of very few deficits in my current gaming experiences that I'm eager to see rectified. Really, the only thing that comes to mind is the frame-rate issues thanks to the PS3's wimpy 256 RAM.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    The question most people are asking I think is can they make a sales-dominating console again.

    Indeed. Or better yet, a console that comparably competes with the PS3 and 360 (or whatever next-gen machines) in the same format, which the Wii decidedly does not.


    The two-part question is:
    - Should Nintendo really treat Sony and Microsoft as direct competition, and if so,
    - What do they need to do to accomplish that?


    In that, I find myself wondering that if Nintendo fails to up its caliber of performance and instead opts for a more insular experience, is that something I want to be part of? I'm not sure I do, really.

    Why would they want to? Sony and MS are driving themselves into the ground while Nintendo makes piles of money.

    And also, why would competing directly with them be 'upping its caliber of performance'? There are more Wii games than 360 games I like and have bought. Can you actually define this in a way that isn't just 'I don't like Wii games'?

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    So, Ross, you just don't find that the Wii has any compelling games?

    Outside a handful of first-party titles? No, I don't. But it just doesn't have the mechanical capability to give me the experiences that I generally come to expect from the PS3, and the MotionControl technology hasn't enriched any gaming experience outside of Wii Sports and Mario Cart.

    It's just old technology. It's the GameCube with motion-mapping technology, at that technology has done little to make a strong case for its persistence beyond novelty value.

«13456799
Sign In or Register to comment.