Quantcast
View Post
Nem said:


This. I dont expect Nintendo to change. They have an aproach to gaming that western companies dont understand. Nintendo focus on creating great products that will delight the consumer, western companies focus on profitability and ignore long time nefarious effects. In essence those 2 doctrines clash and its difficult to find common ground.

The fault never lies and never will lie with the customer. That is a pov that is beeing supplied to you through company incompetence and propaganda. Products are created to fulfill consumer needs. If the product didnt sell, its the companies fault. That is the basic comcept of marketing and they have failed at a primal level. That is what happens when your focus is only profitability. You think that when you do things wrong, its the customers fault, wich is laughable. Such companies will meet their doom soon enough if they dont change their ways.

For example the annualisation of CoD and AC. Its great for them atm, but after some years the series will die off completely. How will ubi and activision mantain profits then? Its not a sustainable tactic. Its a highly risky one too. You need to spread the risk across several IP's. Bandai Namco does that really well, for example, and its a company i like. They make alot of games, most arent huge sellers, but together they make for pretty good profits with low risk. If one game flops, they have 3 more that will do well. If AC and CoD flop, drama will ensue on their companies.

Customer do infact have something to do with it. Customer allways carry some responsibility no matter what, because in the end if no one is buying there is no market, but right now the customers are buying the garbage that is comming out and they are using the predetory microtransaction so those are going to continue because there is a visible market for such.

I'm not saying that it is Nintendo's customers per say but the customers as a whole. They are willing to buy the lastest thing that has beed excreted out by developers no matter what condition it is. There are market that are willing to support such a behavior so they go where the money is. If customer stopped buying the annulization of different games and insisted on a mostly unbroken product. There will always be bugs in software how prevalent they are depends on how long the game is in an actual tuning and optimization mode after the game code itself is "finished". The investors will give way if consumers stop buying into badly made product that is rushed out. They will rethink monitization practices if people are not using certin ones, because it takes time and money to code them.

 

I just wrote a mid sized length post on this a few comments up. But in anything all parties share some sort of responsiblity in a normal market setting. (So this doesn't apply to companies that are trying to con people out of money)