With Move and Kinect, Nintendo is looking to the 3DS for another hardware mechanic gimmick just like the Wii did for player controls.
I hate to use the word "gimmick" because it is understood as a one-trick pony, while glossing over the great software library of the Wii. However, I still cannot stop myself from thinking, would the Wii have beeen as successful as it is with conventional controllers?
Personally, I don't know. The software was developed around the controller and it proved to be a goldmine. That being said, there were plenty of great software titles for the GameCube and it got absolutely curb stomped ala American History X style by the PS2. Factor in, the unknowns from what would have been with a traditional controller and all I can conclude is, I don't know it depends.
This being said, I honestly believe Nintendo will not see hardware numbers in the next generation equivalent to the Wii's numbers. Reasons? Move offers consumers who want Blu Ray for the movie theatre at home experience with a better alternative in more accurate user controls for their and their children's gaming needs. Furthermore, Microsoft with Kinect is taking gaming to a whole 'nother level in controller-less gaming. Microsoft doing Kinect first, attributes the creation of controller-less gaming to Microsoft and if Nintendo responds then they will be ripped for copying from Microsoft.
I just don't see how Nintendo replicates the success of the Wii and DS especially if the 3DS is going down the road of N64 as Malstrom is saying. All that is left for Nintendo is to focus on putting out the best quality software and retaining their blue ocean market. Nintendo is more than capable of both.
The thing is that Malstrom shows why that isn't the case, and why the GC games didn't sell despite a lot of gamers liking them.
The GC didn't have games that appealed to the mainstream. That's why they didn't sell. The Wii does. And unless the Move and Kinect have mainstream games (instead of Wii ripoffs), those will not be what you claim they are.
Malstrom's argument for the success of the Wii boils down to a great software library for core Nintendo players and an untapped market. Whereas Sony and Microsoft focus on hardware and the core, Nintendo focuses on games, which will sell to any gamer, lapsed or core. This is Malstrom's argument oversimplified without all the needless "professor with a cigar in his mouth" commentary.
The problem is, with Move and Kinect, Nintendo no longer has a free reign on the Blue Ocean market. Kinect moreso than Move because the initial launch strategy Sony did with the Move did not focus on marketing because they thought core Sony players would pick it up and it would gain momentum like a grassroots political effort. With the Kinect, you have a very serious threat and very, very big fish in the Blue Ocean. From what I have seen and read, Microsoft is serious on encroaching on and taking away from Nintendo's successbase of this generation.
If all was equal with each console of equivalent power without any controller, Blu Ray, or 3D gimmicks, the results have shown that Nintendo does not compete very well on an even playing level. All you have to do is look at the Playstation and Playstation 2 in comparison to the N64 and GameCube. Nintendo got beat down and violated like a cherry prisoner in the US prison system in those generations.
How much cartridge vs. CD and mini-disc vs. DVD had to do with Nintendo getting whallopped is unknown, but undoubtedly a factor. That being said, the Playstation vs. N64 and Playstation 2 vs. GameCube generations were more equal than this generation has been in similarities to gaming experiences.
By equal in this generation would mean each console has a Wii-like gimmick or better concerning controllers. As for Blu Ray vs. other disc formats, the PS3 is evidence of how little the latest fangled disc format can help sell a console by itself.
The way this generation finishes out will tell a far greater story for the relative places of each console in the next generation. Wii will have been effectively countered by Move and Kinect and the software 1st month sales will convey whether Nintendo will have success in the next generation on a similar level to the Wii.
Personally, I have a hunch that Nintendo will not be ontop next generation unless they pull some hardware gimmick out of left field that allows them to find another Blue Ocean. I just don't see it coming. What we will have is parity and as the Playstation and Playstation 2 gens have shown, when there is parity, Nintendo loses.
I focus on the hardware because hardware has a definite novelty factor to it. The novelty factor for the 360 and PS3 did not last very long because they were viewed as a very similar gaming experience to the original Playstation with the controllers and focus on graphics. Contrary, the novelty factor for the Wii has lasted a long time because Nintendo went down to it's gut and created an out of this world, innovative console with the Wii. Henceforth, when the choice for your lapsed gamer or nongamer is between the two HD twins with a traditional gaming experience vs. the Wii with new innovative controls and games aimed at the lapsed, nongamer and family friendly populations, most chose the Wii and have stuck with it.
If all was equal, Nintnedo wouldn't have made the desicions that lost them the third parties, and thus would have had the same support from third parties that the PS1 and PS2 had. And they would have been an unstoppable juggernaut if that was the case.
I agree with the game overthinker in that Sony only got where they are because their competitiors were either screwing up (N64) or downright collapsing (Sega). You're overrestimating Sony.
Overestimating? For the last couple months I have criticized Sony quite a bit for depending on hardware over software to push their systems. Specifically, how Sony thought the Blu Ray player with the PS3 would be equivalent to a DVD player for the PS2. Nothing is a given as Blu Ray not pushing the PS3 to the top of this generation has shown.
My latest posts here are an honest criticism of Nintendo for their failure in generations past. Individuals may not like to remember the past and only think of Nintendo from the Wii forward, but Nintendo did get stomped earlier and the Wii was an out of this world response to the failures of the N64 and Gamecube.
I believe with Move and Kinect, both Sony and Microsoft have evened the playing field with Nintendo. Nintendo no longer has a monopoly on the "blue ocean," they now have to contend with both Sony and Microsoft even to the point where they are looking to make "core" games again with the 3DS.
Sony and Microsoft are the least of Nintendo's troubles at the moment. Their monopoly on the handheld market from the GameBoy on is now being challenged vigorously from mobile media devices such as Android and iPhones. What kept Nintendo from sinking in years past was the reliability on their handheld to keep them afloat even when their consoles got stomped in head-to-head competition with the PS1 and PS2.
As has been observed during the PS1 and PS2 eras when the playing field is even in terms of hardware gimmicks, software becomes the major focal point. I believe Nintendo is more than capable of routing both Sony and Microsoft in this department as they have with the Wii's top notch 1st party titles.
That being said, nothing is a given. If all are competing for the "blue ocean," then the "core" and catering to the "core" will determine who wins. There may have not been a "blue ocean" during the PS1 and PS2 eras, which is evidence that Nintendo cannot capture the "core" as well as their competitors.
This is why I think Nintendo and Nintendo fans will be foaming at the mouth with rage and resentment next generation. Nintendo will not be on top because the past is not on their side when it comes to winning over and keeping the "core."
Am I overestimating the "core?" Maybe, but when all else is equal the "core" who buys more than 2 to 3 games a year will be the decider as it had been in the PS1 and PS2 eras.