Support NeoGAF

[Flachmatuch]

You have a really good point there. Christensen observed a business phenomena and slapped a name on it. But what I was trying to show in my second post with the wiki quote is that he was the first to slap a name on it. And, in that case, if we are going to use the term he coined, we should use it accurately to avoid confusion.

So please someone answer my second question :-( What *is* the definition of disruptive innovation? If it's stuff like "crummy product for a crummy market", I'll keep saying that it's not a good definition (even though it almost always happens this way) :-D I guess it's more like what's on Wikipedia (ie. against traditional thinking and creating new markets).

 

[Hitokage]

other than coming in to 'disrupt' a discussion with your red labeled name, do you actually have anything to add other than yell 'cult' 'cult' 'cult'? It's kind of like when Republicans yell socialist socialist socialist at anything they disagree with to shut down a discussion.

It's great to be snooty and superior and all, but do you actually have an alternative idea to present?

Not getting into the same semantic arguments over and over, for one. Really though, all of this is trying to fit terms to meet a predetermined conclusion and achieve dogmatic correctness rather than seeing where definitions organically take you.

At this point you just come off as being an ass because your console of choice got disrupted.

Perhaps it's a bit much to ask for you to consider the idea that I don't have a console of choice.

 

[kame-sennin]

So please someone answer my second question :-( What *is* the definition of disruptive innovation? If it's stuff like "crummy product for a crummy market", I'll keep saying that it's not a good definition (even though it almost always happens this way) :-D I guess it's more like what's on Wikipedia.

I like the definition in the youtube video I posted. It seems to be the most concise, and it comes from one of Christensen's students/co-author. I agree that the "crummy products" tag line is nor that helpful. It seems to me that it is mainly used for marketing purposes; it gets executives to pay attention because it sounds so counter-intuitive.

Edit: Hitokage, who is the dude in your avatar?

 

[dammitmattt]

So instead of general bullshit, go ahead and list some of these features, hopefully features that go beyond what can be achieved by stuff much simpler than Natal (ie. a camera and a microphone). My whole point that you seemingly can't comprehend is that you don't need Natal level technology for good interfaces to home entertainment and that these features (some actually do exist in products you can buy today) don't really offer too much value to the consumer.

Again, try to understand what I'm saying. I'm *not* saying that Natal is equivalent to a camera and a microphone. I'm saying that the functionality you need to control your home electronics doesn't require anything more than a camera and/or a microphone. If you want to contradict this, you have to list features that make sense and require anything more than these. And I think I'm objectively right when I'm saying two simple pieces of hardware are enough for these functions because there are actual products on the market that already have a lot of them.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's already described Microsoft as "evil," someone who's opinions are the only facts allowed, and someone who doesn't understand the fundamental difference between hardware and software. There are much more interesting people in this thread to waste my time on than you.

 

[Flachmatuch]

I've been making software for the past 15 years for so (for money, quite a bit longer for free before that), I understand the difference just fine, thank you :-DDD I'd wager that you've not had an semi-complex idea that you also had the chance to implement, because you disregard the importance of concrete ideas and concrete problems so easily.

 

[Eteric Rice]

The question I have is what does Nintendo do next generation? Do they stick with what they currently have (motion controls) and hope that people that bought the original Wii move to their next system instead of their competition's (which will likely have motion control as well), or do they attempt to re-invent the wheel again?

 

[kame-sennin]

The question I have is what does Nintendo do next generation? Do they stick with what they currently have (motion controls) and hope that people that bought the original Wii move to their next system instead of their competition's (which will likely have motion control as well), or do they attempt to re-invent the wheel again?

I had assumed that Nintendo would continue to release sustaining innovations that improved their motion control, like the balance board and Motion +, instead of moving on to a new console. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to put out motion controls themselves (as they did) or launch new systems. The battle between all three competitors would then be based on motion control, an area where Nintendo has first mover advantage.

I'm not sure Nintendo wants to go this way anymore though, as they seem more interested in searching for more blue oceans. I don't know if anyone's ever tried that strategy before, so it's hard to predict. My guess is that this would be the more dangerous route though as Microsoft will eventually grind Nintendo out. If you'll forgive the military analogy, Microsoft is amassing an army of developers. More developers means more games. That means that with regards to finding the next mega-hit (in the Pokemon/GTA vein), probability sides with Microsoft. If Nintendo's only response is to keep reinventing gaming, they will only alienate developers and increase the chances of launching a blue ocean dud.

They hit a goldmine with motion controls. I think the wisest thing for them to do is to fight MS and Sony on those terms. They may not have the money, but the asymmetries of motivation and skill are in their favor.

 

[Deku]

Not getting into the same semantic arguments over and over, for one. Really though, all of this is trying to fit terms to meet a predetermined conclusion and achieve dogmatic correctness rather than seeing where definitions organically take you.

Perhaps it's a bit much to ask for you to consider the idea that I don't have a console of choice.

Where is the predetermined conclusion?
And isn't semantic argument pretty much the stock and trade of internet forums anyways? Why pick on this thread?

Granted this is a discussion about how the video game business is being run, using a specific model to describe a strategy, I don't see a particular problem with using the only good expalantion we have of the strategy that is being pursued. It's not like this was plucked out of several competing ideas.

Perhaps it's a bit much to ask for you to consider the idea that I don't have a console of choice.

It's not too much really, but re-read your post and tell me it was full of humility and understanding and not just an attempt to feel big for 2 seconds on the internet.

You sounded like you had some pent up anger over some past arguments over this issue, so it's really up to you to prove otherwise. I mean no one randomly mentioned your name and forced you to come in here to defend yourself. You came in here and made a post whose sole purpose is to inflame . I can only guess why.

 

[-WindYoshi-]

The question I have is what does Nintendo do next generation? Do they stick with what they currently have (motion controls) and hope that people that bought the original Wii move to their next system instead of their competition's (which will likely have motion control as well), or do they attempt to re-invent the wheel again?

Well i'm pretty sure that if the wheel is reinvented so to speak, motion controls will still be a part of it... you know, maybe controlling aspects of a 360 degree hologram in the middle of your living room with the pointer or something like that.

Not to say that is where Nintendo is headed for sure, but going on past quotes from Miyamoto and such, I definitely think holographics or stereoscopic 3D type technologies are what Nintendo will end up with when they become a viable and cost-effective option.

Natal will put you into the game, what Nintendo will do will put the game into your world... no television required. It's the next step.

 

[Gully State]

The question I have is what does Nintendo do next generation? Do they stick with what they currently have (motion controls) and hope that people that bought the original Wii move to their next system instead of their competition's (which will likely have motion control as well), or do they attempt to re-invent the wheel again?

I get this feeling that Nintendo would go even more deeper into the "edutainment" path. Stuff like Wii-sports, Wiifit and Brainage sell b/c they are able to convince consumers that they're not only fun and intuitive,easy to pick up games, but that they also are good for personal improvement (whether they are is debateable but that's another discussion). What I see Sony and MS do with Motion control is all the things that us core gamers wanted (1:1 sword fighting/FPS IR pointing..etc..)

 

[evilromero]

All they need is a Mario Party 9 and things will swing back up.

 

[Hitokage]

You sounded like you had some pent up anger over some past arguments over this issue, so it's really up to you to prove otherwise.

I have no intention of doing so, actually. Got tired going over this with greyghost and it's rather distressing when many other people are saying the exact same things.

 

[Kilrogg]

Hmm, on second thought, kame-sennin might be right that "crummy product" is a bit confusing. What it means is that a disruptive innovation doesn't go by the standards of the industry. It's weak on purpose in some areas that matter to the traditional market (graphics for instance), but better in others, mainly accessibility, simplicity, price and convenience. Its value lies in things it offers that nobody else offers. Again, the Wii has got weak hardware, less buttons on the controller, weak online performance, but it's smaller, consumes less energy, is silent and gives you an accessible interface with accessible games that don't pride themselves on traditional values such as production values, sheer length and cutscenes. Many enthusiast gamers don't care much about the small factor of the Wii and hate that it's not powerful, so in their eyes it sucks. They don't care much that Wii Sports is pick-up-and-play and instantly fun and hate that there's not much content. Perfectly normal. But to those who care, it's good.

I had assumed that Nintendo would continue to release sustaining innovations that improved their motion control, like the balance board and Motion +, instead of moving on to a new console. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to put out motion controls themselves (as they did) or launch new systems. The battle between all three competitors would then be based on motion control, an area where Nintendo has first mover advantage.

I'm not sure Nintendo wants to go this way anymore though, as they seem more interested in searching for more blue oceans. I don't know if anyone's ever tried that strategy before, so it's hard to predict. My guess is that this would be the more dangerous route though as Microsoft will eventually grind Nintendo out. If you'll forgive the military analogy, Microsoft is amassing an army of developers. More developers means more games. That means that with regards to finding the next mega-hit (in the Pokemon/GTA vein), probability sides with Microsoft. If Nintendo's only response is to keep reinventing gaming, they will only alienate developers and increase the chances of launching a blue ocean dud.

They hit a goldmine with motion controls. I think the wisest thing for them to do is to fight MS and Sony on those terms. They may not have the money, but the asymmetries of motivation and skill are in their favor.

Nothing to add. Exactly what I think. I think people will scratch their heads at "asymmetries of motivation and skill" though .

 

[Flachmatuch]

I have no intention of doing so, actually. Got tired going over this with greyghost and it's rather distressing when many other people are saying the exact same things.

So why don't you just use your experience in this topic and explanatory skills and clear up all the confusion by answering the questions, or even pointing out why they don't make sense?

 

[DrGAKMAN]

The question I have is what does Nintendo do next generation? Do they stick with what they currently have (motion controls) and hope that people that bought the original Wii move to their next system instead of their competition's (which will likely have motion control as well), or do they attempt to re-invent the wheel again?

Not just even what does Nintendo do in the long term into next-gen, but what do they do next year? Some (like Kilrogg) seem to be taking the possition that Nintendo has already squandered their "disruption" by not continuing to make more WiiSport-like or more WiiFit-like software jumps. This then leads to Pachter (and the Pachterites) to think that Nintendo HAS to come out with a new system soon or else they'll "lose" or something.

I'm arguing now though that, do they really have to? Why brickwall the Wii so soon? Yeah it's not HD and not powerful bla bla bla, but that's not the point of the system or why it has been the best selling system so far. The point (at least for Nintendo) is to grow the market and they can't do that by starting over. In terms of next-gen...I think that's so far far away and that by that time we won't know what technology will be available and/or what Nintendo will come up with. This is why I argue that Wii really is capable of having a long lifespan as is.

I mean, what did Iwata say, they'd continue on with the Wii (and DS) until they can't create surprizes or grow anymore...this could take 3, 5 or 8 years...who knows? Wii already has great wireless capabilities for adding peripherals & online gaming (that can only improve), they already have fun controls, a growing library (that should only continue to do so with a growing userbase and sales) and the graphics are okay in the right hands on the majority of TV's. Yeah, we want everything to be "better", but there's still room for much growth on the current systems. What good does it for Nintendo to come out with a simply "better" next-gen Wii without any real new hook (that made the original Wii so big) to get new markets?

Instead of looking to next-gen so soon, I would like Nintendo to explore more and better online gaming, digital distribution, cheaper game prices and hardware licensing to make Wii more of a long-lasting standerd! I think everyone can appreciate the value of a larger library, cheaper games and a longer lifecycle for a system.

 

[Lyude77]

I think with enough time, other developers will finally get as good at motion control as Nintendo, so they need to have another disruptive product ready. An enormous amount of money and the ability to buy a ton of developers would beat the first mover advantage eventually, I would think. Unless Microsoft somehow loses that kind of advantage, Nintendo will need to make some changes. I think they still have a while before they need to do anything, though, because a lot of these third parties are horrible with motion controls (but most have pointing down, at least).

 

[kame-sennin]

I think people will scratch their heads at "asymmetries of motivation and skill" though .

In this instance, the dictionary definition will suffice. That stuff is way too long to summarize.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

I had assumed that Nintendo would continue to release sustaining innovations that improved their motion control, like the balance board and Motion +, instead of moving on to a new console. Microsoft and Sony would be forced to put out motion controls themselves (as they did) or launch new systems. The battle between all three competitors would then be based on motion control, an area where Nintendo has first mover advantage.

I'm not sure Nintendo wants to go this way anymore though, as they seem more interested in searching for more blue oceans. I don't know if anyone's ever tried that strategy before, so it's hard to predict. My guess is that this would be the more dangerous route though as Microsoft will eventually grind Nintendo out. If you'll forgive the military analogy, Microsoft is amassing an army of developers. More developers means more games. That means that with regards to finding the next mega-hit (in the Pokemon/GTA vein), probability sides with Microsoft. If Nintendo's only response is to keep reinventing gaming, they will only alienate developers and increase the chances of launching a blue ocean dud.

They hit a goldmine with motion controls. I think the wisest thing for them to do is to fight MS and Sony on those terms. They may not have the money, but the asymmetries of motivation and skill are in their favor.

Without knowing how well Sony/MS will do with PSwand/Natal, I think it's wisest to just wait them out (not ginore them, but ya know, see if they'll actually require action) before reacting. Nintendo seems to be waiting it out and "reacting" with the Vitality Sensor, which is even newer than what Sony/MS are doing and has more potential to be a bigger hit due to it being on Wii and they high probability of it having driving software.

Creating new "blue oceans" isn't dangerous if they're still doing it on the system that started the original one, otherwise the balance board and WM+ would've been horrid mistakes.

Nintendo hasn't really needed big strong developer support thus far and they're the one's (for the most part, this is a generalization here) that are suffering this generation.

You say Nintendo should tackle MS/Sony head on (with motion controls), but I say 3 things to that:
1) Nintendo has already tried to dirrectly take on Sony/MS before (with technology), that's what led them to going with disruption with Wii instead of an arms race with them. They should really continue to "ignore" (for lack of a better word) the competition and continue to live off in their own little (or should I say, bigger) world!
2) It's Sony/MS that have to "catch up" to Nintendo on the motion controls front.
3) It remains to be seen if they'll do well in that area, let alone steal away the Wii audience. In fact, I foresee they won't do well enough and then they will start thinking of starting fresh with a clean slate in a next-gen, all while Nintendo is still amassing a larger userbase/marketshare by ignoring them.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Not just even what does Nintendo do in the long term into next-gen, but what do they do next year? Some (like Kilrogg) seem to be taking the possition that Nintendo has already squandered their "disruption" by not continuing to make more WiiSport-like or more WiiFit-like software jumps. This then leads to Pachter (and the Pachterites) to think that Nintendo HAS to come out with a new system soon or else they'll "lose" or something.

I'm arguing now though that, do they really have to? Why brickwall the Wii so soon? Yeah it's not HD and not powerful bla bla bla, but that's not the point of the system or why it has been the best selling system so far. The point (at least for Nintendo) is to grow the market and they can't do that by starting over. In terms of next-gen...I think that's so far far away and that by that time we won't know what technology will be available and/or what Nintendo will come up with. This is why I argue that Wii really is capable of having a long lifespan as is.

I mean, what did Iwata say, they'd continue on with the Wii (and DS) until they can't create surprizes or grow anymore...this could take 3, 5 or 8 years...who knows? Wii already has great wireless capabilities for adding peripherals & online gaming (that can only improve), they already have fun controls, a growing library (that should only continue to do so with a growing userbase and sales) and the graphics are okay in the right hands on the majority of TV's. Yeah, we want everything to be "better", but there's still room for much growth on the current systems. What good does it for Nintendo to come out with a simply "better" next-gen Wii without any real new hook (that made the original Wii so big) to get new markets?

Instead of looking to next-gen so soon, I would like Nintendo to explore more and better online gaming, digital distribution, cheaper game prices and hardware licensing to make Wii more of a long-lasting standerd! I think everyone can appreciate the value of a larger library, cheaper games and a longer lifecycle for a system.

Well, the thing is, I think Nintendo hoped to get both core and casual on board, which hasn't happened yet. Not to mention the Wii's huge userbase hasn't really swayed any developers to creating content for it because of it's lack of power.

This leaves only Nintendo and a hand full of third parties trying to hold up it themselves, which I imagine is stressfull.

 

[kame-sennin]

I have no intention of doing so, actually. Got tired going over this with greyghost and it's rather distressing when many other people are saying the exact same things.

I assume this means that you disagree with the theory of disruptive innovation, or that you disagree that it is a driving factor in Nintendo's success. If so, I am curious as to how you define Nintendo's strategy, or what you believe is incorrect about the theory of disruptive innovation.

You say Nintendo should tackle MS/Sony head on (with motion controls), but I say 3 things to that:

My point is that if you look at the motivations of all three companies, Nintendo is the only one with much to gain from motion controls. Ken Kutaragi stated that the Playstation line was an attempt to disrupt the home computer market via the games industry (yes, even the PS3 could be considered disruptive, just not with regards to gaming). Microsoft's goal was to prevent this from happening and in the process establish their own set-top box to get a foothold in the living room. Only Nintendo stands to gain from making games that are more based around interaction and gameplay than technology and visual fidelity. My argument is that Nintendo has a chance to win the motion control battle because they are supremely motivated to win, whereas Microsoft and Sony are not. Hence, there is an asymmetry of motivation between Nintendo and Microsoft/Sony. There is also an asymmetry with regards to skill, because Nintendo is the only company of the three to successfully create motion controlled games for the new audience.

 

[Kilrogg]

My point is that if you look at the motivations of all three companies, Nintendo is the only one with much to gain from motion controls. Ken Kutaragi stated that the Playstation line was an attempt to disrupt the home computer market via the games industry (yes, even the PS3 could be considered disruptive, just not with regards to gaming). Microsoft's goal was to prevent this from happening and in the process establish their own set-top box to get a foothold in the living room. Only Nintendo stands to gain from making games that are more based around interaction and gameplay than technology and visual fidelity. My argument is that Nintendo has a chance to win the motion control battle because they are supremely motivated to win, whereas Microsoft and Sony are not. Hence, there is an asymmetry of motivation between Nintendo and Microsoft/Sony. There is also an asymmetry with regards to skill, because Nintendo is the only company of the three to successfully create motion controlled games for the new audience.

Well, there's that, and the simple fact that Sony and Microsoft haven't released anything yet. We know how important momentum is in this industry. The more motion-controlled games come out for the Wii, the more it will cement itself as the go-to system for motion-controlled games. Hell, it's already seen as such, but the more Nintendo pushes in that direction, the less successful Microsoft and Sony will be once their new controllers come out.

Frankly, I think Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart and Wii Sports Resort have already created a very hostile climate for any competitor willing to enter the arena. It's just a matter of how many more lions Nintendo can put out before the gladiators join the fight. I don't expect the latter to come up with a revolutionary new technique or weapon to overcome the lions. It definitely is an uphill battle for Sony and Microsoft.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Well, there's that, and the simple fact that Sony and Microsoft haven't released anything yet. We know how important momentum is in this industry. The more motion-controlled games come out for the Wii, the more it will cement itself as the go-to system for motion-controlled games. Hell, it's already seen as such, but the more Nintendo pushes in that direction, the less successful Microsoft and Sony will be once their new controllers come out.

Frankly, I think Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart and Wii Sports Resort have already created a very hostile climate for any competitor willing to enter the arena. It's just a matter of how many more lions Nintendo can put out before the gladiators join the fight. I don't expect the latter to come up with a revolutionary new technique or weapon to overcome the lions. It definitely is an uphill battle for Sony and Microsoft.

If momentum didn't matter, the Atari Lynx and Game Gear would have outsold Gameboy by millions of units.

 

[Spirit Icana]

Frankly, I think Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart and Wii Sports Resort have already created a very hostile climate for any competitor willing to enter the arena. It's just a matter of how many more lions Nintendo can put out before the gladiators join the fight. I don't expect the latter to come up with a revolutionary new technique or weapon to overcome the lions. It definitely is an uphill battle for Sony and Microsoft.

Sony and Microsoft's biggest challenge will be getting solid software on their platforms, true.

Most of Nintendo's hardware and software groups are stationed within the same building so the developers of hardware and software are continuously talking and reworking their products. More than not, the Wii was made for Wii Sports, not the other way around. It's classic Nintendo. That's how they work, and it gives them a strong advantage.

I talked about Nintendo's integrated hard/soft a little bit earlier, but it looks to me like it could use a little bit more emphasis so here's a slightly redressed repeat.

 

[felipeko]

After Wii Sports Resort and New Super Mario Bros (Wii) seems clear to me that Nintendo's direction has more to do with local multiplayer (social gaming) than motion controller. Mario Kart, one of industry's best selling game ever, does not built itself on motion control, but rather from great multiplayer. And so will New Super Mario Bross (Wii). Wii Sports Resort, even being the MotionPlus showcase, is also a local multiplayer showcase (looking at 2:1 MotionPlus vs WSR sales on Japan).

I think even Wii Fit Plus, having more "games" is probably a trying at social gaming.

This is really an overlooked feature for games other than Nintendo's :/

 

[Arpharmd B]

If you are Nintendo...

You can price drop now, causing retarded shortages and Ebay gouging this Christmas.

Or you can keep at 249 for one last holiday season, where you will still probably come close to selling out, then price drop next year when its slow.

You have to remember, this is the first holiday the machine will actually not be supply restrained.

 

[Fredescu]

I have no intention of doing so, actually. Got tired going over this with greyghost and it's rather distressing when many other people are saying the exact same things.

If you can't tell the difference between him and these other posters, you're not paying attention. They don't deserve to be lumped together just because they discuss the same thing.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

That's vastly oversimplifying things. 3D was the natural evolution for the entire industry and all three consoles arrived there at the same time. If 3D was all that was necessary for everyone to take notice, then why didn't the N64 do better? It's because Sony actively targeted new markets that had never been targeted by Sega and Nintendo. It's not just because the PS1 had more games, it's because it had more good games that people wanted. It's because it dominated in the most popular genres at the time (sports, racing, fighting) AND also met all of the smaller genres and niches. And it did all of this at vastly lower price points than the N64, where $60 was the standard price for nearly all games.

Do you know how hard it is to come into an industry for the very first time with a brand new product and actually steamroll the competition AND vastly expand the entire industry? Yeah, the PS1 did that, and you're acting like it was no big deal.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but are you calling Xbox Live "lame ass" and are you calling the PS3 an "abortion?"

Natural? And 3D/motion controls weren't? If natal arrived in 2005 would you still be saying it was unnatural? If all three consoles did it at the same time? 3D was NOT mandatory in the 90's. Nobody had to focus on it if they didn't want to. They did it because they knew it would be huge.

The N64 did do better. Better than it would have if they had no SM64 to put the spotlight on them. But without more games the N64 couldn't beat the PS1. And why are you complaining about N64 games that cost $60? Not all of them did and all PS360 games are at that price point.

Smaller genres and niches? You mean 2D games? No those barely existed on any console except Saturn at the time. All three consoles that gen had something from most genres, but the PS1 had far, far more choices. A lot of "hardcore" people followed the games they knew and loved to the PS1, and thanks to all the casual games people like to pretend only exist on the Wii , the PS1 got the casual market of the late 90's as well. Again, do not underestimate how many people thought 2D games were for "babies" and only gave videogames a chance when it went 3D. That alone is enough to bring in a whole new audience of people to help boost sales.

But since it's you asking....maybe you'd like another answer better. One that you'd give you if you were me right now and I were you. lol How about the PS1 selling 100 million consoles because a large chunk of those consoles were peoples second or third purchase, thanks to the PS1's horribly poor hardware quality? I finished that gen on my THIRD PS1. Others I knew were on their second. So, maybe...it was really 50+ million owners. If I'm right, then the PS1 loses some bragging rights there. And the PS2 picked up a lot of the old N64 and Saturn/DC audience, so that would explain why that console sold 100 million. Oh and DRE probably boosted sales in the same way the PS1's hardware did for it....

Another thing to think about is the longer games exist the more people are born into it. Yesterday's children create today's. So naturally, lol, there will be more and more consoles sold. Crusty old gamers and shiny new ones making it possible for these types of topics to keep going.

I don't know about you, but claiming PS1 did something groundbreaking by steamrolling the competition is laughable when you realize that they just threw money at whoever wanted it and won by dragging all the best third parties over to them. Otherwise the PS1 would have suffered the same fate as 3DO or Jaguar. In fact, I think it would be more appropriate to give third parties props for making Sony number one in gaming. Of course now that many of those third parties have either died out or turned to shit, it is not surprising that they don't have the same pull they used to. If the PS3 was reasonably priced at launch, it would be in a comfortable second place right now. many third parties would not have bothered porting to the 360, and we wouldn't have such a messy ass market right now.

I didn't say anything about Xbox live. And I was talking about PS3's controller + a certain game that was derailed by it long ago.

And stop complaining about MK being the same game sequel after sequel. Where are you when the same sports game X gets sequel after sequel. Why not call Halo 1-3 the same thing sequel after sequel. Oh, right I forgot that the "same" meme is for Nintendo games only. My bad. Carry on.

 

[Fredescu]

these other posters

Except xs_mini_neo. He's insane.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Except xs_mini_neo. He's insane.

I would have gone with exasperated. I can see why though.

 

[Fredescu]

I would have gone with exasperated. I can see why though.

That would imply that he's frustrated because he's so right, when what I really meant is that he's a blithering fanboy who is wrong about many many things.

 

[Kilrogg]

If momentum didn't matter, the Atari Lynx and Game Gear would have outsold Gameboy by millions of units.

Well, first, that's an "if" scenario, and second, I don't think I implied that momentum was irrelevant...? If anything, I'm saying that Nintendo should capitalize on the incredible headstart they have, which is only reinforced by Sony's and Microsoft's slow responses. I mean, Nintendo expected them to counter attack at E3 2008, which is why they unveiled the MotionPlus just before the first conference. It means that Nintendo was somewhat ready to try and crush their co-option, and yet here we are with only one Nintendo MotionPlus game, and one other such game (Zelda)... maybe.

I think Nintendo either took their time (see Iwata Asks on Wii Sports Resort) laughing at Sony and Microsoft's inability to retaliate soon enough, or they're heavily investing into something else. Or both.

... Or we're all wrong and Nintendo's just being super secretive (as they often are) and will wow everyone by the end of 2010, but I'm not too confident right now.

 

[Hitokage]

I assume this means that you disagree with the theory of disruptive innovation, or that you disagree that it is a driving factor in Nintendo's success. If so, I am curious as to how you define Nintendo's strategy, or what you believe is incorrect about the theory of disruptive innovation.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of disruption, just framing it in such arbitrary terms so only Nintendo can be disruptive. Have they been more disruptive? Possibly, but it also remains to be seen how their success pans out, especially given how uneven it seems to be at times.

Also, I tend to think the primary factor in Nintendo's success, then and now, is their ability to drum up revenue while spending a pittance for it.

So why don't you just use your experience in this topic and explanatory skills and clear up all the confusion by answering the questions, or even pointing out why they don't make sense?

Because much of that entailed mental scarring.

 

[marc^o^]

In terms of momentum, wii will get in the next 3 months sequels to 3 of the most selling games ever. Wii Sports Resort with Motion+, Wii Fit Plus and New Super Mario Bros.

Nintendo could release more titles in Q4 but they don't really need it (see what happened with Mario Kart and WiiFit last year), and it could cannibalize sales of their system sellers. Maybe they could have added a sequel to Nintendogs but I'm sure they keep it for next year. The kid audience is already covered with many huge game that won't have much competition this fall on other consoles. Toy Story Mania, TMNT, Rabbid Rabbits... should be huge. Red Steel 2, Just Dance, Fitness Shape (or whatever) with the camera should also be big in the west.

In Japan a new console color is coming, along with the new Monster Hunter...

=> it seems unlogical to anticipate a further decline of wii's momentum now.
Wii has all the right cards coming to reach a wide, big audience, as it used to.

 

[gofreak]

I'd wonder how much sequels to wii sports and wii fit in and of themselves would do for hardware sales..

Wii's already sold tens of millions on the back of those games and a few others (predominantly), and sales were slowing..I wouldn't necessarily expect more of the same to bring sales back up to the same levels as before. It might be a case of preaching to the choir.

How has sports resort done for hardware in Japan?

A price cut, I think, would have a bigger impact on hardware.. that in combination with new software like sports resort and wii fit+ might have a bigger impact, but on their own I'm not sure.

 

[Kilrogg]

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of disruption, just framing it in such arbitrary terms so only Nintendo can be disruptive. Have they been more disruptive? Possibly, but it also remains to be seen how their success pans out, especially given how uneven it seems to be at times.

Also, I tend to think the primary factor in Nintendo's success, then and now, is their ability to drum up revenue while spending a pittance for it.

This industry is still very young, and disruptors and disruptions aren't easy to come by. Aside from heavily-biased Nintendo fanboys, the people suggesting that only Nintendo has been disruptive (since the Atari crash, that is) do so because they are actually the only disruptors in the gaming industry. Who knows who will be the next disruptor? Maybe Nintendo, or maybe someone else.

It should be clear though that we're talking about the games industry. As kame-sennin said, Sony's systems (more specifically the PS3) are attempts at disrupting Microsoft in the computer industry. It looks like it'll fail horribly in the end, but still. What's the point in discussing that industry though? We'll stick to gaming, and in gaming, yes, only Nintendo has been a disruptor. What's so shocking about it?

You're right that Nintendo's resource-managing has been a great asset up until now. It's also one of their weaknesses. But saying what you said primarily explains why they were able to survive when they lost their leadership. There's also the fact that they're a software and hardware-integrated company. SEGA was too, but poor business acumen and management forced them to drop the hardware.

 

[marc^o^]

I'd wonder how much sequels to wii sports and wii fit in and of themselves would do for hardware sales..

Wii's already sold tens of millions on the back of those games and a few others (predominantly), and sales were slowing..I wouldn't necessarily expect more of the same to bring sales back up to the same levels as before. It might be a case of preaching to the choir.

How has sports resort done for hardware in Japan?

A price cut, I think, would have a bigger impact on hardware.. that in combination with new software like sports resort and wii fit+ might have a bigger impact, but on their own I'm not sure.

Wii Fit is still selling more than PS3 and 360 combined. WiiFit+ will be much more fun to show to relatives. High quality party games, that anyone can play and that make people look crazy and smile is what made wii successful. Wii Sports Resort alone may not be enough, but when put aside with other key wii titles, it sure enhances wii's value proposition. Most of the market remaining is not hardcore gamers, but casuals that still have not bought a console. Price might be an issue, but I'm still sure wii will have a fantastic Q3/Q4 with its upcoming lineup.

 

[swerve]

Has anyone yet ventured the opinion of 'it doesn't really matter' if it's trend or temporary?

The most honest people about the situation with Wii and DS, however unusual it is for this to be the case, has *always* been Nintendo Japan themselves.

How many times have they stated that luck was a big part of their success? that they sometimes fail to deliver software in a timely manner? that they can only operate in terms of what they think is right and they don't have crystal balls? Even going so far as to suggest that Miyamoto *isn't* god?

NCL is the best place to go for analysis of the Wii situation and most recently they have stated that they are working on re-energising the market, because they acknowledge they've let it slide. In fact, they stated just a couple month ago that they are actively trying to dampen consumer expectations, because people expect them to be able to continue at the unsustainable growth of the previous three years.

So they're going to fire out some big-hitters this year and their success or lack thereof will determine the plans for the next few years, no doubt. I'd be very surprised if they responded to anything their competitors did, ever again.

 

[dammitmattt]

Natural? And 3D/motion controls weren't? If natal arrived in 2005 would you still be saying it was unnatural? If all three consoles did it at the same time? 3D was NOT mandatory in the 90's. Nobody had to focus on it if they didn't want to. They did it because they knew it would be huge.

Computers had been doing 3D for years. Consoles had been doing very rough 3D for years, and with some added chips did some decent 3D. It was the natural evolution of the industry to focus on 3D, just like the move to HD was a natural evolution for consoles. Motion controls were not a natural evolution, which is why everyone was so caught off-guard from Microsoft and Sony to every developer out there.

The N64 did do better. Better than it would have if they had no SM64 to put the spotlight on them. But without more games the N64 couldn't beat the PS1. And why are you complaining about N64 games that cost $60? Not all of them did and all PS360 games are at that price point.

But it did far worse than the SNES, which did a good bit worse than the NES. YOU claimed that more people took notice because of 3D in games like Mario. I'm saying that more people took notice because games were being designed for a much broader audience than ever before. Of course the 3D graphics were a reason, but they weren't the only reason.

And seriously, I've never seen anyone miss the point as much as you did. I'm not "complaining" about $60-70 N64 games and it has absolutely nothing to do with how games are priced today. I was making what I thought was an OBVIOUS point that the PS1's lower price points for games made it more affordable for consumers and more cost-effective for publishers. That was just one of many reasons why the PS1 outsold the N64 by more than 3 to 1.

Smaller genres and niches? You mean 2D games? No those barely existed on any console except Saturn at the time. All three consoles that gen had something from most genres, but the PS1 had far, far more choices. A lot of "hardcore" people followed the games they knew and loved to the PS1, and thanks to all the casual games people like to pretend only exist on the Wii , the PS1 got the casual market of the late 90's as well. Again, do not underestimate how many people thought 2D games were for "babies" and only gave videogames a chance when it went 3D. That alone is enough to bring in a whole new audience of people to help boost sales.

No, I'm not talking about 2D games. I'm talking about how it absolutely dominated the smaller genres and niches (see point about costs above) in addition to more than holding its own in the most popular genres of the mid-late 90s.

But since it's you asking....maybe you'd like another answer better. One that you'd give you if you were me right now and I were you. lol How about the PS1 selling 100 million consoles because a large chunk of those consoles were peoples second or third purchase, thanks to the PS1's horribly poor hardware quality? I finished that gen on my THIRD PS1. Others I knew were on their second. So, maybe...it was really 50+ million owners. If I'm right, then the PS1 loses some bragging rights there. And the PS2 picked up a lot of the old N64 and Saturn/DC audience, so that would explain why that console sold 100 million. Oh and DRE probably boosted sales in the same way the PS1's hardware did for it....

You must be high. Are you really that dumb to suggest that the true PS1 audience was actually only 50 million because every single person had to buy a second PS1? I bet you're the same kind of idiot that uses that same reasoning for the NES, PS2, and 360. Oh, wait. You'd never use that line of reasoning for the NES.

Another thing to think about is the longer games exist the more people are born into it. Yesterday's children create today's. So naturally, lol, there will be more and more consoles sold. Crusty old gamers and shiny new ones making it possible for these types of topics to keep going.

That's only part of it. People fall out of gaming almost as quickly as new people come into gaming, which is why companies like Sony (with the PS1/PS2) and Nintendo (with the NES/Wii) deserve so much credit for getting consoles into hands of adults who never owned a console before.

I don't know about you, but claiming PS1 did something groundbreaking by steamrolling the competition is laughable when you realize that they just threw money at whoever wanted it and won by dragging all the best third parties over to them. Otherwise the PS1 would have suffered the same fate as 3DO or Jaguar. In fact, I think it would be more appropriate to give third parties props for making Sony number one in gaming. Of course now that many of those third parties have either died out or turned to shit, it is not surprising that they don't have the same pull they used to. If the PS3 was reasonably priced at launch, it would be in a comfortable second place right now. many third parties would not have bothered porting to the 360, and we wouldn't have such a messy ass market right now.

Third parties came running and screaming from Nintendo and their ridiculous cartridge costs. It's like you can't stand the idea of giving Sony credit for anything, though I suppose giving Microsoft credit for something would be even worse.

I didn't say anything about Xbox live. And I was talking about PS3's controller + a certain game that was derailed by it long ago.

You said "the industry wanted better graphics...and other lame-ass things that don't make fun games." Since the whole focus this generation has been centered around two huge improvements, HD and online, what else could you be talking about when you say "lame-ass things?" And I suppose you were talking about Lair, which you brought up why?

And stop complaining about MK being the same game sequel after sequel. Where are you when the same sports game X gets sequel after sequel. Why not call Halo 1-3 the same thing sequel after sequel. Oh, right I forgot that the "same" meme is for Nintendo games only. My bad. Carry on.

It's amazing how much you miss the point yet again. I'm not complaining about Mario Kart. I'm making a point that it shouldn't be lumped in the category with Wii Sports and Wii Fit as an audience-expander because the game has changed relatively little over the years.

I would have gone with exasperated. I can see why though.

You can see why? Really?

 

[Evlar]

Has anyone yet ventured the opinion of 'it doesn't really matter' if it's trend or temporary?

The most honest people about the situation with Wii and DS, however unusual it is for this to be the case, has *always* been Nintendo Japan themselves.

How many times have they stated that luck was a big part of their success? that they sometimes fail to deliver software in a timely manner? that they can only operate in terms of what they think is right and they don't have crystal balls? Even going so far as to suggest that Miyamoto *isn't* god?

NCL is the best place to go for analysis of the Wii situation and most recently they have stated that they are working on re-energising the market, because they acknowledge they've let it slide. In fact, they stated just a couple month ago that they are actively trying to dampen consumer expectations, because people expect them to be able to continue at the unsustainable growth of the previous three years.

So they're going to fire out some big-hitters this year and their success or lack thereof will determine the plans for the next few years, no doubt. I'd be very surprised if they responded to anything their competitors did, ever again.

This is a sensible post and I agree with the description of the situation and the conclusions, apart from the last sentence.

 

[swerve]

This is a sensible post and I agree with the description of the situation and the conclusions, apart from the last sentence.

Fair enough, it is a bit of a sweeping statement, but I do believe the sentiment of it. My feeling is that they will respond to declines in their own popularity, and to failures of their products, but that they won't ever try to one-up the other guy on something the other guy is already doing.

I mean come on... two screens? wii remote? balance board? and now vitality sensor... it's all driven by their own ideals of making weird shit into something fun. Their competitors have done some amazing things in gaming but very few have had any impact on Nintendo's business. Else we might already have something as disruptive as LIVE, on a Nintendo system.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Has anyone yet ventured the opinion of 'it doesn't really matter' if it's trend or temporary?

The most honest people about the situation with Wii and DS, however unusual it is for this to be the case, has *always* been Nintendo Japan themselves.

How many times have they stated that luck was a big part of their success? that they sometimes fail to deliver software in a timely manner? that they can only operate in terms of what they think is right and they don't have crystal balls? Even going so far as to suggest that Miyamoto *isn't* god?

NCL is the best place to go for analysis of the Wii situation and most recently they have stated that they are working on re-energising the market, because they acknowledge they've let it slide. In fact, they stated just a couple month ago that they are actively trying to dampen consumer expectations, because people expect them to be able to continue at the unsustainable growth of the previous three years.

So they're going to fire out some big-hitters this year and their success or lack thereof will determine the plans for the next few years, no doubt. I'd be very surprised if they responded to anything their competitors did, ever again.

I've been saying something along the lines of 'Nintendo should just ignore the competition' in my last couple of posts now. Not completly ignore, but also not to hastily react because of dropping Wii sales, competitor's motion controls or whatever other market conditions.

I'm with you though, it doesn't matter and I think the Wii market is already so far ahead of the "competition" that it's not even competing with it anymore...it's it's own market IMO. It's pretty seperate, with it's own types of games, it's own audience and it's own goals...all of which are different than their competition's.

Some say that Nintendo should deal with slow sales with a pricedrop...um...first of all, they're not slow sales if we're still comparing them to the competition and what has Iwata (as you said, from NCL) said about pricedrops? He's said they only give a temporary boost and that they won't do it for the time being (not to mention it would force the competition to react and reach more mass market prices sooner, something Nintendo should want to prolong, not instigate). What's way more likely than a pricedrop is bundling in WSR & WM+ in with the Wii this holiday.

Some say Nintendo should ramp up next-gen production because the Wii can't capture the "core" market. No amount of arms racing or direct competition in the traditional sense is going to get Epic or Itagaki or Kojima to suddenly start making games on Wii, so why start over to try to do that. Yeah, it lacks power and HD and all that, but it's done well without thus far despite the competition touting it. In a way, it add's to the fact that Nintendo is sorta in a seperate and different market.

Some say Nintendo needs to react to Natal/PSwand. While Nintendo should keep an eye out, I think we all know that these products won't suddenly make X360/PS3 Wii-killers. It'd be like Nintendo trying to make an XBL-killer, it's too late in the generation to do it with any effect, let alone if it even could be done. They'll also say Nintendo needs to play to their motion control strength's. Haven't they already though? And aren't they adding more to the table with them and other new interfaces? I think Wii is already established itself as the place for those types of games and those types of gamers.

I'm gonna go out and say I agree with your last sentence...Nintendo is in it's own market, it doesn't need to compete dirrectly with Sony/MS anymore...at least not this generation. They're the one's that are behind, they're the one's who are forced to play Nintendo's game by coming out with Natal/PSwand, and I imagine that they will fail to crack into the Wii audience especially when Nintendo will have stronger software and newer ways to play to keep that audience in place.

And when MS/Sony fail with that, they'll either see the seperation of markets (them vs Nintendo, core vs casual, up-market vs down-market, traditional vs motion...however you wanna label it, there's a seperation there) or they'll try to move onto the next generation to try to throw money at it, do it better or try to "out Wii" the Wii. In the mean time, they're losing more money, userbase (by having to start over) and marketshare while Nintendo is gaining all that and still chuggin' towards their goal of reaching *everyone*. Nintendo doesn't need to bring out a new system until Nintendo's internal developers (again, as you said, NCL) feel they need to in order to provide "surpizes" which entails being able to do something the Wii can't do. This leads me to believe that Wii (and DS, if we want to get technical) will have long lifespans (as Iwata said 3, 5 or even 8yrs from now) until Nintendo comes up with whatever their next "big thing" is regardless of what the competition does. Until then I would suggest Nintendo to look to other avenues of growth including lower priced games, more digital distribution synergy between Wii & DSi and hardware licensing expansion.

 

[Hitokage]

It should be clear though that we're talking about the games industry. As kame-sennin said, Sony's systems (more specifically the PS3) are attempts at disrupting Microsoft in the computer industry. It looks like it'll fail horribly in the end, but still. What's the point in discussing that industry though? We'll stick to gaming, and in gaming, yes, only Nintendo has been a disruptor. What's so shocking about it?

Ok, I read a little of what Christensen actually wrote rather than going on what various people interpret it as, and while I still find his views a tad reductionary and calvinballish for my tastes, they are a bit more pragmatic than I gave them credit for. That is, where there's smoke there's fire, and without smoke there's no fire, regardless of how you evaluate flint, tinder, or flames. Accordingly, by mere fact that an entrant firm, Sony, toppled the established firms, Nintendo and Sega, the Playstation was disruptive even without going into data speed, seek speed, durability, mechanical complexity, vendor lock-in, and copy protection.

Again, I'm no fan, but as long as people aren't contorting themselves in mental gymnastics in deference to their own rigid interpretation of a work, I'll respect it as an interesting argument rather than Ayn Rand for Nintendo Fans.

What interests me more right now though, is the reasoning behind my earlier statement about Nintendo drumming up revenue for a pittance. After thinking more about it, "disruptive innovation" has a connotation of nobility that I have difficulty accepting. It also misapprehends videogame systems, as what Nintendo is doing isn't necessarily new or even creative. Various forms of peripheral or non-generalized control have been around for ages. Obviously everyone remembers the Zapper and Power Glove, but electronic gaming has been rife with such devices for a long time, including standalone toys. Dance Dance Revolution is just one entry in a line of pad games, Guitar Hero is hardly the first peripheral music game, and nobody should forget about the original EyeToy when considering Microsoft's Project Natal. These have always been a part of gaming, but usually have taken a back seat to generalized control(read:controller) based games where complexity and simulation are the differentiating factor. You don't play Mario by jumping up and down yourself or even moving something up and down, but rather you push buttons that make him run and jump in a simulated field or could just as easily perform any other conceivable action. One could devise a Mario game with non-generalized control, but as the term might imply, the game would be inherently limited to what you could do with the peripheral.

This distinction has only recently become important as missteps by Sony and Microsoft have compounded the cost of producing generalized control based games. Nintendo, however, being left with a shrinking consumer base of loyal customers to milk, came up with a way to severely undercut both of them while at the same time casting a veneer of ingenuity. They decided to ditch the natural progression of producing more advanced hardware for more advanced simulated environments, excise such games from their console, and leave primarily the preexisting peripheral segment. Not only did they not have to spend money on a new generation of technology, they could also sell peripherals rather than just having to settle with software residuals. As such, the Nintendo Wii has a dramatically lower cost up front at $250 to get units out the door, but throw in enough Wiimotes, Nunchuks, Wii Wheels, and Motion Plus units($100 MSRP per player!) and they easily make comparable revenue but at pennies in typical Nintendo fashion. That the wiimote is limited to gestural control never really mattered, as it being the primary mode of control was enough to shout new, different, and cool into millions of wallets waiting to be opened. All of this was little more than cost cutting, and in internet vernacular, the Wii has been printing money as a result.

In this light, Drinky Crow was never going to get the Nintendo handheld he wanted anyway, because why make a technologically advanced Gameboy when you can hold a buy one get one free sale on increasingly cheap LCD screens?

Now, admittedly, you could certainly argue that I just described disruption, but it's in a far more delightful and satisfyingly cynical way. Nintendo the Miser fits reality better than Nintendo the Innovator in my opinion.

 

[Vdragoon]

someone sounds bitter.

 

[Hitokage]

someone sounds bitter.

Typical symptoms of prolonged exposure to the Virtual Console release cycle.

 

[marc^o^]

Wow.

 

[evilromero]

The release of Pulseman on the VC today will propel hardware sales significantly.

 

[Yagharek]

Not only did they not have to spend money on a new generation of technology, they could also sell peripherals rather than just having to settle with software residuals. As such, the Nintendo Wii has a dramatically lower cost up front at $250 to get units out the door, but throw in enough Wiimotes, Nunchuks, Wii Wheels, and Motion Plus units($100 MSRP per player!) and they easily make comparable revenue but at pennies in typical Nintendo fashion. That the wiimote is limited to gestural control never really mattered, as it being the primary mode of control was enough to shout new, different, and cool into millions of wallets waiting to be opened. All of this was little more than cost cutting, and in internet vernacular, the Wii has been printing money as a result.

That doesnt exactly answer the question of why people are buying the Wii. That the peripherals add to the cost is unquestioned. That the system is priced within reach of most consumers isnt questioned. But the exact same thing could be said of 360. Why did Wii become so popular and not the other two systems?

My suspicion is that not enough credit is being given to titles like Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Mario Kart for being accessible to a much larger range of players. Even Guitar Hero/Rock Band on their own (regardless of platform) seem to sell abnormally well compared to the previous generation of games. Contrary to your self-admitted cynicism, I think it does have a lot to do with bringing back old or bringing in new customers.

But you get bonus points for the use of the word "calvinballish".

 

[xs_mini_neo]

That would imply that he's frustrated because he's so right, when what I really meant is that he's a blithering fanboy who is wrong about many many things.

Spoken like a true fanboy. "He's insane, I tell you! Insane!"

Computers had been doing 3D for years. Consoles had been doing very rough 3D for years, and with some added chips did some decent 3D. It was the natural evolution of the industry to focus on 3D, just like the move to HD was a natural evolution for consoles. Motion controls were not a natural evolution, which is why everyone was so caught off-guard from Microsoft and Sony to every developer out there.

But it did far worse than the SNES, which did a good bit worse than the NES. YOU claimed that more people took notice because of 3D in games like Mario. I'm saying that more people took notice because games were being designed for a much broader audience than ever before. Of course the 3D graphics were a reason, but they weren't the only reason.

And seriously, I've never seen anyone miss the point as much as you did. I'm not "complaining" about $60-70 N64 games and it has absolutely nothing to do with how games are priced today. I was making what I thought was an OBVIOUS point that the PS1's lower price points for games made it more affordable for consumers and more cost-effective for publishers. That was just one of many reasons why the PS1 outsold the N64 by more than 3 to 1.

No, I'm not talking about 2D games. I'm talking about how it absolutely dominated the smaller genres and niches (see point about costs above) in addition to more than holding its own in the most popular genres of the mid-late 90s.

You must be high. Are you really that dumb to suggest that the true PS1 audience was actually only 50 million because every single person had to buy a second PS1? I bet you're the same kind of idiot that uses that same reasoning for the NES, PS2, and 360. Oh, wait. You'd never use that line of reasoning for the NES.

That's only part of it. People fall out of gaming almost as quickly as new people come into gaming, which is why companies like Sony (with the PS1/PS2) and Nintendo (with the NES/Wii) deserve so much credit for getting consoles into hands of adults who never owned a console before.

Third parties came running and screaming from Nintendo and their ridiculous cartridge costs. It's like you can't stand the idea of giving Sony credit for anything, though I suppose giving Microsoft credit for something would be even worse.

You said "the industry wanted better graphics...and other lame-ass things that don't make fun games." Since the whole focus this generation has been centered around two huge improvements, HD and online, what else could you be talking about when you say "lame-ass things?" And I suppose you were talking about Lair, which you brought up why?

It's amazing how much you miss the point yet again. I'm not complaining about Mario Kart. I'm making a point that it shouldn't be lumped in the category with Wii Sports and Wii Fit as an audience-expander because the game has changed relatively little over the years.

You can see why? Really?

lol Why are you bringing the PC into this? I know you are a fanboy and all, but really? Yes, 3D control was a natural evolution, as was better graphics. But since only Nintendo did it, you naturally must insist it was unnatural. See, I can do what you do too. ; )

If N64 didn't have SM64, then that system would not have done nearly as well as it did. I didn't know the bar was set at 100 million = "sell well" and anything less = "bomba." But according to you, that's the case. Thank you for setting me straight on how badly the N64 bombed. Now I can sleep at night. There were games for "broader audiences" before consoles went 3D. This "broader audience" didn't give a shit until it went 3D. If you're really 29, then you should know better.

Game prices were high even in the 16-bit days. And if $60 won't stop people from buying 360 games, then how could it stop them from doing the same with N64 games.

"Smaller genres and niches" is another way of saying 2D. Because that's what was smaller and niche at that time.

I'm not high, lol, but I am tired. I gave you a response you could be proud of. I did add a + to the 50, though... And people were bitching and moaning about PS1 hardware back then. How fast fanboys forget. It is not out of the question to suggest that many of the PS1 consoles that were sold did so because many people had to buy a second one. It's not like this type of situation is unheard of...we just sat through the RRoD after all. : ) Some people have reported going through six or seven xbox consoles. That's a lot of systems in circulation. No one was bitching about any system being a hardware failure until PS1 showed everyone how it was done.

And why are you bringing up the NES? Was there some secret RRoD-esque type of failure I missed?

So now you're saying the Wii/NES should be given credit? lol, didn't you just say PS1 was the first time all ages played games? I guess you never saw all those parents who played SMB on the NES. Let's pretend that never happened so we can make Sony look even more like our savior.

I don't know why you're so hung up on people giving Sony or MS credit. They have plenty of fans ready to do so. I don't worship at the altar of any console, however this gen's stupidity has pushed me a bit into making more fanboy-like responses in retaliation to the "lol, Hardcore civil war", so excuuuuuse me princess.

You said HD was a natural evolution, and yet corporations had to force it down the consumers throat. So natural. Smaller third parties be damned! HD doesn't make games better, just better looking. Online doesn't make better games. If you're definition of a good game requires online multi, then you should check the casual gamer card IF you whine about Wii mini-game/party games. Don't be a hypocrite. Achievements are lame because they are manipulative and pointless. They are the equivalent of a condescending doggy treat. I hate them. I don't need to rewarded for completing level one. Hate! But I'm sure you love consoles being forced into becoming PC-lite. I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually started saying we will all be assimilated into the internet. Matrix, here we come. I can't think of anything more natural!

Lair is brought up because it set the tone for third parties shutting their doors. Better?

As for MK, you sounded like those other fanboys who bitch about Pokemon and other Nintendo games being "more of the same." I don't see those people whining about sports game X or FPS Z being more of the same. You said the reason I missed the point was because you claim it wasn't a "game-changer" or whatever. It is the first console MK to feature an online (heh) mode. So by your logic MK should be a "game changer." But we can't have that, can we? We must tear Nintendo a new one and praise the dreammakers that call themselves Sony and Microsoft. For they are the true gaming gods. Gaming will die if Nintendo is allowed to continue! We killed Sega, and feasted on its corpse. Once Nintendo is gone, we shall murder all the Ninthings and at last gaming will reign supreme and everyone will respect our hobby and we will all become manly space marines waiting for our DLC and latest corporate trick designed to syphon moar and moar cash from our not-nerdy wallets full of cash collected from not-random battles from our lonely basements-turned space stations, hoho. I shall paint my home brown and grey.

Come, my friend, let us cash our checks from Sony and MS and drink and smoke the night away.











<-- insane!!

 

[Sadist]

Wow.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Insane sometimes equates to entertaining, especially when it leads to schadenfreude.

Spoiler

Woah. Schadenfreude is in Firefox's spellcheck.