Zod95 said:
No, it's not a rise-and-fall. It's a rise-fall-fall-fall then again rise-fall-fall-fall. Fall is the rule, rise is the exception. The rule comes from what they are every day and night (not a coincidence of many problems that strangely get bigger 3 times in a row). The exception comes from a combination of creativity and market opportunity that only happens from time to time.
They managed to control supply and demand in NES times (http://www.geekcomix.com/vgh/fourth/nesbad.shtml) in order to get submissive retailers and gamers. Again, you are considering that all companies think the same way. If what you say was to be right, then Game Cube console and games would have experienced many more price drops than PS2 console and games. And if you read the article I've mentioned, you will understand that it did affect Nintendo's market share. When there are cartrige shortages, games don't sell as much. When it's the console maker controlling cartrige production, 3rd parties don't get as much units as they would want. When small 3rd parties don't have decent sales, they break. When there is less competition, the console maker raises its market share and domination.
Affordable? Yes. Cheap? Not as much as the PS3.
In what year, month, day, second did you see the PS3 or X360 more expensive than the Wii U?
No. The quotation marks were not on the "low-budget" but on the "remakes". Nintendo games are low-budget and that is obvious for me even without knowing any numbers from them. Just do the following experiment: 1 - look at the production costs of high-budget games and low-budget games - 2 - make a list of the things that mostly made the games expensive - 3 - see whether those things are mostly present on the most expensive games - 4 - see if Nintendo's games have those things mostly present too. You will get to the same conclusion as me. Regarding "remakes", I'm talking about the old same old IPs with the old same old game architectures. Nintendo is the company doing it the most. The most demanding gamers could not stand for it and decided to migrate to PlayStation as soon as it appeared. That was Sony's revolution with the PS1: a revolution of atttitude...and the market opportunity was there, gamers were desperately waiting for new games and decent quality/price offers.
I don't get you. Of course evey company has values and they go beyond the law. Sony and Microsoft could have adopted the region lock for PS4 and XOne (like Nintendo did for WiiU) but they didn't. Nintendo has certainly more values than Monsanto once I don't see them capable of challenging the public health. And there are many more examples of different values among different companies. The law means actually very little as some companies manage to change it with their influence while others go around it changing the market rules.
No they don't. I won't even talk about fanboys that only want to see the other side burning. A gamer is a consumer, and a consumer only cares about him/herself. I'm not concerned about whether it is good or bad. It is what it is. So, gamers fighting for the abolishment of the DRM from XOne only came (significantly) from people interested on the console. But ok, let's forget about Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo clients and let's just consider them as gamers. Then my statement would be: Xbox would be a disgusting choice if gamers were as demanding with it as they are with Nintendo consoles. |
Much of what you said seems to be based on assumptions. You assume that Nintendo's games are low-budget, and you (seem) to assume that Nintendo has some bad values in the industry when you aren't an insider or anyone who would know what goes on in meetings. You may come back at me with "You assume blah, blah, etc." but what I am doing is taking more of a neutral stance. I'm saying that all companies have the same end goal; to make money. Especially bigger companies. I'm saying that companies reply to supply and demand. I'm not making statements about Nintendo's budgets when I'm not completely sure on them. I'm not an insider nor am I trying to assume how Nintendo does their business. I'm just looking at the basics here.
Also,
|
In what year, month, day, second did you see the PS3 or X360 more expensive than the Wii U? |
... what?
I'm also wondering, what is your goal with this discussion? Other than to try to change my mind. Do you think Nintendo should shake up their practices? If so, I think the same. Do you think the Wii U wasn't the best idea? If so, I think the same.
