By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - The Malstrom thread 2: Revenge of the Lapsed Gamer

axt113 on 10 October 2010

I'm less worried about the position of the pad, and more about the lineup, I haven;t seen the games I'm looking for yet

 

NSMB, Advance wars, Old School Zelda and Metroid (no emo wussy Samus),  Donkey Kong Country

 

I'm a little worried that Nintendo will continue with the poor gaming choices that have plagued the Wii, Other M, Galaxy, etc.



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

Around the Network
KungKras on 10 October 2010
Killiana1a said:
KungKras said:
Killiana1a said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Killiana1a said:

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.

So the assumptions that you make are:

A. Move and Kinect have evened out the playing field and because of this, Nintendo try to compete in the core market again with the 3DS.

B. Nintendo survived becasue of the handheld market.

C. Nintendo lost to the competition in the fifth and sixth eras because of an inherent disability to appeal to the core, wich will carry over to future generations.

D. The playing field was even in the fifth and sixth era.

Alright, let me try to explain why these assumptions are faulty.

A - In disruption litterature, there are something called assymetry of skill, and assymmetry of motivation (also called sword and shield of disruption). If you want to know what it all means, Malstrom wrote some great expalanations of it that you can find on his site, but what it basically means is that this gen, Nintnedo has locked down the low end market to itself, and the most likely scenario is Nitnendo moving uptier to more high en markets whereas the competition try to get to the low-end markets but fails again, I suggest you to read up on the terms "sword and shield of disruption"

B - Gamecube and N64 were profitable. At least N64 was. And Nintendo did have the recources to survive the Gamecube gen. Sega were far worse off financially than Nintnedo, and they survived long enough to make the Dreamcast.

C - This is where you are the most wrong. Not only is your assumption that Nintendo has some magical inability to appeal to core gamers wrong, but you also fail to make any compelling argument as to how said inability to compete in the core market would translate to future consoles

Yes, Nintendo didn't appeal to the core market as well as Sony during those genereations, but instead of just saying that they didn't because they can't there is a reason as to why they lost their core appeal. It's called THIRD PARTY SUPPORT. It turns out, that the consoles with the most of it, wins over the core market.  There are Nintnedo consoles with good third party support, they are called the SNES and the NES and they won their respective generations and are much loved by the core gamers of today.

D - I already explained some of the things related to this point in the paragraph above. Nintnedo didn't lose those even battled becasue of an inherent ability to win over the core, they made HUGE mistakes that lost them the third party support in gen 5, and in gen 6, Sony just rode the momentum and support that they had from gen 5, so even if they started out even in gen 5, gen 6 was anything but even. So yea, if you watch a battle between 2 gladiators, and gladiator 1 trips on a rock and drops his sword and gladiator 2 picks it up and wins the battle, you could say that the playing field was even, and that gladiator 2 won when the playing field was even, but what you can't say is that gladiator 2 will win everytime that the playing field is even, becasue then you would be ignoring the circumstances under wich Gladiator 2 won.

My point is, that your generalizations about the past has no merit what so ever when it comes to trying to predict the future. Sayin that you overrestimated Sony was perhaps expressing it the wrong way. I was just reacting to your point about Nintendo losing under an even playing field without really looking into why they lost.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Killiana1a on 13 October 2010
KungKras said:
Killiana1a said:
KungKras said:
Killiana1a said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Killiana1a said:

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.

So the assumptions that you make are:

A. Move and Kinect have evened out the playing field and because of this, Nintendo try to compete in the core market again with the 3DS.

B. Nintendo survived becasue of the handheld market.

C. Nintendo lost to the competition in the fifth and sixth eras because of an inherent disability to appeal to the core, wich will carry over to future generations.

D. The playing field was even in the fifth and sixth era.

Alright, let me try to explain why these assumptions are faulty.

A - In disruption litterature, there are something called assymetry of skill, and assymmetry of motivation (also called sword and shield of disruption). If you want to know what it all means, Malstrom wrote some great expalanations of it that you can find on his site, but what it basically means is that this gen, Nintnedo has locked down the low end market to itself, and the most likely scenario is Nitnendo moving uptier to more high en markets whereas the competition try to get to the low-end markets but fails again, I suggest you to read up on the terms "sword and shield of disruption"

B - Gamecube and N64 were profitable. At least N64 was. And Nintendo did have the recources to survive the Gamecube gen. Sega were far worse off financially than Nintnedo, and they survived long enough to make the Dreamcast.

C - This is where you are the most wrong. Not only is your assumption that Nintendo has some magical inability to appeal to core gamers wrong, but you also fail to make any compelling argument as to how said inability to compete in the core market would translate to future consoles

Yes, Nintendo didn't appeal to the core market as well as Sony during those genereations, but instead of just saying that they didn't because they can't there is a reason as to why they lost their core appeal. It's called THIRD PARTY SUPPORT. It turns out, that the consoles with the most of it, wins over the core market.  There are Nintnedo consoles with good third party support, they are called the SNES and the NES and they won their respective generations and are much loved by the core gamers of today.

D - I already explained some of the things related to this point in the paragraph above. Nintnedo didn't lose those even battled becasue of an inherent ability to win over the core, they made HUGE mistakes that lost them the third party support in gen 5, and in gen 6, Sony just rode the momentum and support that they had from gen 5, so even if they started out even in gen 5, gen 6 was anything but even. So yea, if you watch a battle between 2 gladiators, and gladiator 1 trips on a rock and drops his sword and gladiator 2 picks it up and wins the battle, you could say that the playing field was even, and that gladiator 2 won when the playing field was even, but what you can't say is that gladiator 2 will win everytime that the playing field is even, becasue then you would be ignoring the circumstances under wich Gladiator 2 won.

My point is, that your generalizations about the past has no merit what so ever when it comes to trying to predict the future. Sayin that you overrestimated Sony was perhaps expressing it the wrong way. I was just reacting to your point about Nintendo losing under an even playing field without really looking into why they lost.

Well, I have done my reading of Malstrom, but I do not take his word as the authority of God or even as someone with a PhD. professor level authority. Malstrom has his biases, it shows in his articles. Some would discount entirely, as some have, his entire intellectual point of view backed up by his articles due to his biases, which trend overwhelmingly in favor of Nintendo. Hell, when your articles are titled "Finding Nintendo's Shield," that pretty much sums up your biases in a nutshell.

I am not going to argue with you point for point, as it will be viewed by myself as arguing with Malstrom, which is a pointless exercise in citing blog articles (LOL never thought I would be using the ridiculous term) vs. another's point of view which is misconstrued as "generalizations" to discredit the messenger.

What I will say, I agree generalizations about the past does not have much merit on predicting the future. However, the past is who we are today. Without the mistakes and successes of the past, we would not be who we are today.

There is a reason why Nintendo has lacked in third party support. Has it cost them this generation? No. Did it cost them in the past? Undoubtedly yes.

Likewise, the lower end of the market is not full of a bunch of blind, unthinking robots. My point with Kinect and Move is that they are substitutes/alternatives in the lower end. The motivation on Sony's end appears to be a half-assed attempt to fit in and follow the crowd. This is not a good motivation and I will not be surprised when Move reaches the 1 million mark, Kinect will have surpassed the 3 million.

Kinect on the other hand, you don't need a Malstrom post or article to figure it out, is a serious attempt at attracting those in the lower market.The games from Dance Central onwards to the millions spent in marketing, Microsoft is going all in with Kinect and they will be rewarded for it.

As for the other points, I have nothing more to contend. However regarding handhelds,  forget the past success of the DS, with 3DS you cannot expect Nintendo with the PSP2 and increased gaming capabilities of handheld phones to reach market percentages like they did in the past.

As it goes, the past has no merit on predicting the future whatsoever. Past success included.



Killiana1a on 13 October 2010

EDIT: Double Post.



TheWon on 16 October 2010

Great Post Killiana1a!

There are too many variables in the past that affected each situation. Instead he likes to focus on the one aspect that helps his argument. The N64 failed to defeat the Playstation due to a small library of games. Launching with only 3 games in the first 4 months. Being a cartridge medium that gave us higher priced games. Also games with no where near the quality or content compared to thier disc versions. Instead he says if the N64 launched with a 2d Mario game it would have won the generation.

Gamecube era still had the same issues. Mini Disc, lack of games, and coming out a year later of the PS2. Which had backwards compatibility, huge library of games, hackable, and DVD player. Instead 2d Mario would have saved the day! It's so bad now that people on his site. Can't even acknowledge the possibility that Nintendo may lose this holiday season. Putting all their faith into one game, just because another game did it the year before. Despite the fact the 360 has out sold you 4 months in a row. That Move did help the PS3 to out sale you in September. You can drink the Kool Aid if you want. I'll be by the door just encase the Mothership doesn't show up. 



 

Just because someone is saying something different. Doesn't mean their point of view is right!

Member Of The Wii Squad: Warriors of Light!

One of the 4 Yonkou of Youtube aka Wii Warlords. Other Members include ThaBlackBaron, Shokio, and Cardy.

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 16 October 2010

"Instead he says if the N64 launched with a 2d Mario game it would have won the generation."


He didn't really claim that one thing alone, even though it seemed like it. The context was that the mindset to make those games wasn't there anymore, and if they made games like that for the N64, it would have sold a hell of a lot better.

Carts just drove off third parties. Games people don't find appealing won't sell no matter the medium.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

--OkeyDokey-- on 16 October 2010

What's Malstrom's email address? =)



Leunam on 17 October 2010
--OkeyDokey-- said:

What's Malstrom's email address? =)


seanmalstrom@yahoo.com



Rhonin the wizard on 17 October 2010

Email: Curse of the idle Game Designer

Email: My take on one of Nintendo’s biggest mistakes

Email: Mario’s Voice likes 2d Mario better

Email: About Minecraft and surprises



adsl on 17 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

"Instead he says if the N64 launched with a 2d Mario game it would have won the generation."


He didn't really claim that one thing alone, even though it seemed like it. The context was that the mindset to make those games wasn't there anymore, and if they made games like that for the N64, it would have sold a hell of a lot better.

Carts just drove off third parties. Games people don't find appealing won't sell no matter the medium.


Because of NSMB Wii sales I'm expecting Nintendo to make the next 2D Mario a release tile for the "Super Wii". This can bust the new console sales and ensure a good install base for the third parties just a few moths after the release.