* He links a bunch of unrelated youtube content to undeline opposing arguments to arguments I never made (the commercial bit is the main culprit here).
Do you even remember what you write, man?
Here's a reminder of what you wrote:
"Look at their advertising over the past three decades; where companies like Sony and Microsoft and independents often focus on effects, visuals, sound and other, perhaps superficial things, they choose to focus the presentation on the product.
Nintendo have a long history of panning shots where they show ecstatic kids playing games, this isn’t because they have such immense heart and love your smile more than others, it is simply a marketing ploy to draw in young customers, they focus on the implicit euphoria of owning Nintendo products, instilling a sense of “can’t miss this, kiddo!” rather than focusing on the product."
You just made a giant spiel contrasting Sony's & Microsoft's advertising with Nintendo's.
Yes I did.
You pretty much said that Nintendo is manipulating the viewers by showing the reactions of people.
Actors with staged reactions, like all other commercials.
Pretty much implied that these types of commercials & ads are disingenuous of Nintendo.
I’m stating that I think it is unethical to market towards children, kids should not be consumers at all.
So what do I do? I once again argue in your framework & dismantle it.
Actually, what you did was fail to take a stand on the ethics question I was actually posing; is it ethical to market/advertise for children and is it more or less ethical than being superficial?
You said that Sony & Microsoft focus on effects, visuals, sound, & product.
You said that Nintendo focuses on ecstatic kids, implicit euphoria WITHOUT focusing on the product.
I AGREED & said that it was a SUPERIOR way to deliver their products. That it was a more GENUINE way.
And I maintain and suggested that adverts aimed at children are unethical, more so than being superficial.
I used your very own words to hang you with. Sony & Microsoft focus on product, effects, visuals, sound AKA Technology.
You read my words and then wrote about your philosophical stance of employing a human appeal to advertising; which is that it superior, something I don’t disagree with in principal, I find most of Sony and MS’ commercials to be bland, plain weird (creepy baby doll anyone?) or nondescript (there are a couple of great ones though, Microsoft’s baby being launched into the air and aging before crashing into the casket is one I will always remember simply due to its highly original and simultaneously provoking and humorous nature).
Nintendo focuses on kids' ecstasy & euphoria AKA People & Emotions.
I showed numerous examples of Nintendo commercials showcasing this reality.
And still managed to avoid the actual argument; the ethics surrounding marketing aimed at children. Besides; commercials do not showcase reality, according to both of us; I have pointed out staged reactions and scripts and you have very recently uttered the following:
““A commercial is a commercial, Mummelmann. We know it's advertising.””
I underlined the whole thing showing that it reflects the philosophy of their entire console & game design.
That tech is a MEANS to an end not THE END as it is with Sony & Microsoft.
And that’s a perfectly fine point, but still not related to my actual query.
Two companies started out in tech fields & naturally reflect their origins.
Another company started out in play fields & naturally reflect their origins.
Hard to disagree with that, anyone who would is being ridiculous.
Nintendo has always been a PLAY company from day one making those hanafuda cards.
That's why they were able to naturally transition into toys (another PLAY field) & videogames (another PLAY field) while they couldn't transition into instant noodles, taxi service, vacuum cleaners, & love hotels (love hotels is a SEXUAL PLAY similar but not quite the same).
And that’s why MS and Sony have gone to such lengths to forge lasting alliances with outside creative talent or been aggressive and showed more initiative in acquiring them as 2nd party; they realize full well their shortcomings as game makers.
Cards, toys, & games is what Nintendo is all about. That's why they were so stubborn with the cartridge format (CARD-tridge) for the Nintendo 64.
I disagree. In actuality, this was more about not adopting the CD-Rom format that was in no small part a Sony venture. Doubly so after the fiasco of the Sony and Nintendo coop with a potential CD-Rom driven Nintendo console. Nintendo, in a slightly amusing twist of irony, wanted to avoid royalty fees on the format and having to work with Sony and they instead opted for an archaic solution more or less out of spite. It is not unthinkable that Nintendo would have actually embraced the new format had Sony nor been such a major proponent of it. The DVD was pretty much the same story, Sony had a big stake in this format as well and Nintendo once again opted to bypass the format the rest of the world were embracing and chose a proprietary disc in the miniDVD, there really was no other reason for them to do this, there was no advantage to it other than avoiding going onto the market with a joint-Sony format in their box. The format choices of the N64 and Gamecube were a show of poor sense in almost every way, the advantages of adopting a universal format that also stored more information and was a lot cheaper to produce would have far outweighed the mostly imagined slight of accepting and paying a bit for a competitors format solution. These, among others, are the kind of decisions I’m talking about when I call Nintendo out for not working towards an optimal developer environment; it is wholly selfish and rather illogical in the long term.
If you want a prime example of staggering political play; it doesn’t get more definitive than this.
Nintendo are refusing to join market movements willingly and wait until their hand is forced, they miss out on the process when these standards start gaining traction and become ingrained as the default in the industry and fail to construct a practice and structure on these solutions and tech and end up trying to jump onto a treadmill at full speed (their recent trouble with extended development times for HD games is a perfect example here). To top it off; they insist on making the belated tech “unique” and this often results in missing the mainstream angle and them becoming niche in features and overall. Pair this with missing the market constant on account of lack of breadth of software due to poor support and you have yourself a disaster. The two problems are closely tied and the cycle perpetuates itself, it is not mere coincidence that the real problems began around the N64 era and onwards. Nintendo and the 3rd party effectively rebuking one another.
The Wii U is the ultimate culmination and illustration of these issues. And yet, they somehow still think they can dictate the market and force convergence and developer direction; delusion incarnate. Their horrible online effort, lack of account system, ridiculous 8GB Basic SKU at launch and tablet controller with off screen play that doesn’t even support the console’s native resolution all show a company that has let themselves be outrun by standard tech and features in favor of their own solutions and there is no point in attempting to compete on a halfhearted basis, they are basically surrendering potential selling points to the competition by becoming the inferior and cumbersome option in many areas on the home console market.
These are not the marks of a solid strategy or a company properly attuned to the market.
They still have game cards & SD cards in their home consoles & handhelds.
Wii U has a initial setup screen asking to tap icons of Spades, Hearts, Clubs, & Diamonds.
New Super Mario Bros. U's Boost Mode has you summon platforms adorned with Spades, Hearts, Club, & Diamonds.
You know what? That’s actually pretty damn cool and a nice ode to their own heritage.
The Nintendo DS released a game called Master of Illusion complete with a deck of actual Nintendo playing cards.
They give away playing cards on Club Nintendo—Western & Hanafuda styles.
Again, good stuff. Despite what my at times brutal tone would lead you to believe, I actually appreciate and even love certain Nintendo products and certainly their games. That does not compel me to condone their misguided strategies though, which is another thing I’m hoping to make you understand in here.
Wii Music is more like a musical toy than a game. And so is Electroplankton. So are certain extras in the WarioWare games.
Nintendo licenses plushies & LEGOs of its characters to be released in the toy aisle. There's even a Super Mario Chess set.
Even the way Nintendo conducts business & delivers conferences is playful.
And that’s also good, but I feel that their recent focus on Nintendo Directs is a bit of a waste, especially if they’re hoping to draw in any kind of non-gaming audience again.
They hold their cards close to chest just like an experienced card player & dazzle you like a magician showing you card tricks.
Perhaps they used to, now they mostly hype up announcements and then disappoint a large number of stoic fans with underwhelming news. There are recent examples (Grumpy being one) and this is possibly not the best strategy for them right now when they need to regain trust and show future promise and purchasing incentive.
They USE tech to deliver card, toy, & game. They don't use game to deliver tech, effects, visuals, & sound.
When you play with cards or toys or games it is ALWAYS a social experience. A people-focused experience.
This is not true for my part; I love a good single player game, nothing much social about that. Focusing on social gaming is nice but you can’t possibly argue that this should be the emphasis of all games and gaming experiences. I do enjoy local multiplayer as well but my most memorable gaming moments are single player ones.
The interplay between peoples. So it's no surprise why Nintendo is focused more on people than their tech.
And that's what makes them successful in the end. That's why they are not in awe of their tech.
They only see it as a way to deliver more fun, more PLAY to PEOPLE.
See, that’s the thing; other developers also want to deliver fun and engaging player experiences and the massive focus on online in the 7th gen shows the intent of making gaming an experience to share with others to a greater extent. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of online gaming, but to each his own.
And to show that this intention IS genuine (as if their conduct doesn't already show it) & that the results ARE genuine, I punchline the topic with the N64 Kids hollering ecstatically euphorically over the Nintendo 64.
That's a real video. That's a real reaction. And that's why Nintendo will always remain the leader of the business.
Like I said in my bigger rebuttal; these kinds of videos can be easily be found for other products and consoles as well and this is not an argument to elevate Nintendo’s hold over their fans and the market over the competition. Quick examples;
Aren’t these shows of euphoria? This is more less the best illustration I could ever find for my point; Nintendo are not the only ones who have earned their fans, they are not the only ones who make people happy and ecstatic, they are not the one company in the world that loves games and gaming and they’re not the only ones who would be happy to see kids, or others, become so thrilled with their products. Do you understand what I’m saying here?
Somehow they have the ability to make these mundane machines feel like more than machines.
There are two machines that have made me feel this way; the N64 and the first Playstation, the feeling of something alien yet comforting, a plastic box holding the promise of class entertainment and value for years and years. Both delivered.
That takes a certain kind of magic. Something is genuine there & that's why you see people proudly wearing NES controllers on their T-shirts today.”
Again; there are plenty of people wearing PS and Xbox effects as well, this is not unique to Nintendo. A classic NES controller belt-buckle is pretty thug though, gotta say.
* Due to my harsh language, I've made him all but come out and expose his Messiah complex, it's actually scary to witness.
Messiah complex? No, what you're doing is trying to make a caricature out of me to dismiss what I have to say.
I ran down every single one of your points line by line in VERY elaborate fashion & you have no valid answer to my comments.
I argued in your framework & defeated your arguments in excruciating detail.
All of your comments lately have run on the mentality "Due to my superior ability & master mind, I have made him come out, I have made him do this & do that".
That sounds like a God complex to me. As if you're the puppeteer with the puppet on a string.
The Chessmaster moving your pawns.
The truth is you have to resort to these tactics because your arguments have run out.
You can't attack the message so you attack the messenger.
Have fun with your caricature but when you're done with playing with that, you can rejoin me in debating the topics at hand.”
I’m gonna level with you here; I admit to having been rash and childish in my tone. I saw you write that you have a “confrontational personality”, well so do I. I’m simply frustrated by your thick-headedness and (to my mind) hopeless digressions that are all a waste of time. I told impertinence that I would focus more on the arguments and less on the person, and I will hold true to that word.
I disagree with your statement on me not having any valid answers though; I still consider most of your main arguments feeble and hollow and I do find your rhetoric unsettling and preachy most of the time.
You did not defeat my arguments so much as write around them and then moving on.
My arguments have not run out, I’m only getting started, and there are still several posts of mine you have yet to answer, some containing points directly countering many of yours. The ones on 3rd party ambition vs development cost are one group, a highly relevant one, you have yet to show a sliver of proper reasoning for how Nintendo offers any kind of advantage with the Wii U over the others.
I am attacking the message and I’ve done a pretty damn good job at it, this very reply included, and I’ve even steered clear of the relative pettiness of some of my previous posts and I actually, honestly feel good while writing this post.
Your last sentence here bothers me; it is you who are avoiding points and failing to properly defend your position and beliefs in a tangible and sensible way; a lot hinges on speculation, un-provable hypothesis rooted in the past and some extremely far-fetched leaps of logic and it is crystal clear that you lack any degree of technical insight.
For all it’s worth though; I’m sorry for having been an asshole.
* He thinks, apparently in all sincerity, that everyone should have the same taste in gaming as him, including me, a staggering show of incredible elitism.
Hmm. The following are words from Mummelmann.
"Now, as for me? Do I love all this? No! I hate the idea that Hollywood is the primary inspiration for games, I hate QTE’s, hand-holding, ridiculous AI and other bullshit and I consider phone and tablet gaming nothing but cancer on the industry, pulling quality down along with the Hollywood model."
Phone & tablet gaming is a cancer on the industry, Mummelmann says. But he calls me an elitist.
I honestly believe that convenience gaming is detrimental to the overall quality of gaming since it takes funds and potential creative investments away from other, more thoroughbred forms of gaming.
This is what I said about mobile gaming & other platforms in general.
"I don't necessarily hate the mobile platform & I am always open to any avenue a developer can have to express his/her vision.
The open-ended nature of mobile DOES tend to pack a lot of trash on this platform but it's not all bad.
There are good games on the smartphones & tablets. There are good games on the PC.
There are good games on the PlayStations & XBoxes.
What I'm concerned about is the EXCLUSION of Nintendo from the discussion."
Which one of those statements sounds elitist & sounds like everyone should have the same taste?
I also said this in another topic later in that rebuttal.
The problem is; you go directly against this attitude in other segments of your posts and cite Nintendo as the be-all end-all to gaming and basically labeling the vast majority of other efforts as useless and baseless and/or shallow. A large part of the industry today really is shallow but on the whole, it’s not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, despite the lack of Nintendo’s craft shining through most productions.
"The one who plays Candy Crush Saga is JUST as much a gamer as one who plays Mario. Those who play the Facebook games are JUST as much a gamer as those who play World of Warcraft. Those who only play the perennial sports games like Madden & NBA 2K are JUST as much a gamer as those who play indie games.
And because I don't believe in this concept of "Non-Gamer" means that I DIDN'T resent the emergence of the PlayStation when it expanded the scope of gaming. I don't resent the emergence of the smartphones & tablets as a gaming platform. I don't resent the emergence of the browser based games. I don't resent Steam as a platform. I didn't resent Nintendo's Touch Generations titles like Brain Age & Wii Fit when it brought people who never played games to the pastime.
The more gamers the merrier."
Who's elitist now? The guy who calls a Candy Crush Saga gamer as just as legit as a Mario gamer or the guy who says the phone & tablet gaming is a cancer on the industry?
You take it upon yourself to decide that Nintendo are the way, that their philosophy should be the inspiration for all gaming, this is more or less condemning other forms of games or gaming and you do have a very deep set and genuine desire to see Microsoft and Sony burn, along with what I can only imagine is a large part of the PC industry.
Sneaky late edit for emphasis on my stance:
That right there is why I call mobile gaming a cancer on the industry, or is someone going to tell me that this is an acceptable and healthy form of gaming we should welcome in the industry? It is by far the most destructive model we've ever seen. I'm not as elitist as you, and furthermore; I actually have a point, read the above link.
And he takes this statement I made & totally misses the point.
"They ALSO want Nintendo's standards to be the Rule not the Exception. Mummelmann, you should want the same too."
Somehow he reads that as I think he should only play Nintendo games & only like the games I like.
It sounds an awful lot like you stating that Nintendo standards are the best and, by logical extension, that you taste in games is superior to others’ and you really are telling me directly and unmistakably that I should wish for the same things as you, based on your subjective reasoning and personal preference. That is elitism, John, no way around it. I’m probably elitist too, being a PC gamer and all, but I do insist that you are showing a lot more elitism than me, I have not once attempted to dictate what your gaming tastes should be nor have I implied that others should not be allowed to enjoy other games and types of gaming (the latter does not pertain to you). I expressed my honest disdain for convenience gaming on mobile/tablets and I will continue to shun Hollywood inspired drivel with no depth.
Rockstar follows Nintendo's standards by not putting out games until they make signifcant improvements or advancements instead of banking on the yearly installment deal.
On a personal level, I would disagree somewhat here, GTA IV was a step down from San Andreas both in my eyes and in the eyes of what appears to be the majority of the franchise’s fanbase. It was smaller, relied a lot more on the glossy tech you have no mind towards, it attempted to make cars behave more “realistic”, going against the well-known, perfectly fitting and widely loved convention of the series, it featured a very 7th gen inspired and somewhat poorly executed cover system and it featured an inferior soundtrack to both Vice City and San Andreas. It also removed quite a few gameplay elements. It made improvements as well; the “moral choice” system was somewhat good (although a tad underworked) and offered actual consequences as the story unfolded and a welcome addition to the series. Overall, though, most fans agree with me that GTA IV was a step back. GTA V is in many ways what I feel that GTA IV should have been but is also failing to reach San Andreas’ level, in my humble opinion.
That's why Grand Theft Auto V sold so much so fast.
That's why PS2's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is #16 on the all-time best-sellers list.
The primary reasons why these games have performed so well is terrific writing, awesome music, multitude of gameplay elements and self-ironic tone and sheer size, both in the literal sense and in length, massive value for money.
They also do different things & diversify. They put out L.A. Noire, Table Tennis, Manhunt, & Red Dead Redemption.
Rockstar & Nintendo haven't gotten along since the N64 days when they were DMA Design.
Yet Rockstar's quality levels approach Nintendo's levels because follow tenets Nintendo is known for.
Disagree, the GTA series, especially since GTA IV, have relied heavily upon hardware, they have focused rather heavily on tech (ragdoll physics in GTA IV and V), rely on writing that would simply never appear in a Nintendo developed or published title, art direction that strives for realism more than any other sandbox game today, heavily saluting pop cultural phenomenon rather than shamelessly promoting only themselves and, not to mention; depicting situations of a violent and sexual nature that few games approach without becoming a parody of itself. For me, the GTA series is among the most far removed from Nintendo tenets, both on a technical and philosophical scale.
I personally believe Rockstar is one of the best & most creative 3rd parties out there.
One of the best; certainly.
He complains about a Hollywood-ized industry, I show him the antidote to that, he takes it as if I'm elitist & thinking he should play the same games as me.
Hey, all I can do is show the word history.”
You don’t show me the antidote, you show me your antidote, and it’s really hard to interpret your index finger in my face as anything but assertion of superior taste and intent to steer. I have already explained several times what kind of games I like, there are a whole lot of companies that can provide an antidote to the Hollywood game, but this doesn’t fit into your world where Nintendo must be the pinnacle of gaming and the shining beacon everyone should shamble towards. Nintendo should never become the template for all gaming, neither should any other one direction or philosophy, that is what most true gamers should desire in my opinion; this inspires diversity, risk-taking, a more competitive market and an overall more sharp industry.
* He thinks that the development cost of a game is affected either way by how many copies you print... no comment needed there.
It takes money in every aspect of the game-making, game-shipping, game-stocking, game-selling process.
Why is this such a strange statement? They allocate resources for programmers to build the code, for artists to conceptualize & actualize the figures & backgrounds, for musicians & sound men to deliver the audio, for factories to make copies of the finished product, for warehouses to store these copies, for planes/trains/automobiles to transport these copies over-air/overseas/on-the-road to docks/warehouses/retailers, for marketers to advertise the product & get it to sell.
Money is parceled out for each & every step of this process.
When they develop games, they can share the resources they make in production for each platform assigning this team to make this version for PlayStation, this one for XBox, this one for Nintendo. They can & DO forecast what they believe each console can sell & make shipments accordingly.
That's what Activision did when they made Call of Duty games for the DS. They assigned a team to create a DS version & allocated the amount of stock they believed would best sell for that platform.
All of this is under production costs.
People in the food business, in the clothing business, in the soap business, in ANY business do the very same things.
They may allocate 300,000 of a product to one retailer in a Southern region while allocating 1,000,000 of a product to the same retailer in a Northeastern region.
They may allocate 10,000 to this store while allocating 200,000 to another store.
They have metrics that figure out what sells which in which retailer, which region, which season.
But you notice that the smartest businesses make sure there's at least some of their stock in EVERY store.
Frito-Lay doesn't just ship their Doritos to Wal-Mart. They make sure their Doritos are seen in every store they can put it.
Some people don't go to Wal-Mart, some people don't go to Kroger's but no matter where they go they can get some Doritos.
It's in a company's best interests not to arbitrarily deny a retailer/platform for trivial matters.
While a Wii U version of a particular game may not be the best-selling of the versions, you GUARANTEE not to get any business by not putting the game on the platform at all.
And after awhile if you keep not stocking your product in Nintendo's stores, those Nintendo customers will just buy other products & get used to them.
Instead of Doritos, they'll get used to Taco Flacos. You'll be locking yourself out of a hot market.
If it sells weaker on a Nintendo platform, just publish a smaller amount of stock where it can sell through.
Who knows the shorter supply may increase demand where you can publish more. Won't know if you don't try.”
See, this is one you should have just let die, this is probably the easiest one to really, properly pick apart and it does nothing but detract from your entire argument and your insistence that you have great insight into the industry and business in general.
Game-shipping, game-stocking and game-selling are the distribution process and have absolutely nothing to do with the development process.
The conceptual work, planning, sound work, visual coding, post-process and polish and finally; editing and testing phases are all complete once the game goes into actual print. The amount of copies you print does not affect this process as it happens after the fact and is an entirely separate entity.
You can’t compare this to the food industry, clothing, soap or any other industry of the same kind; these are assembly line products with production costs per unit. If you write an essay of 35.000 words (like your biggest post in here) and make 200 copies, that doesn’t mean you have to write it 200 times more; it is a blueprint copy from a template, or a mold if you will. It does not make your writing process more difficult, take more time or affect the intellectual investment (or lack thereof) in the text itself.
When a movie goes out of post-production, it is a finished product. Selling 500 copies or 25 million of the DVD does in no way affect the production cost of the movie. Printing the 25 million copies do not suddenly and retroactively increase the cost of the production itself that was finished a long time ago.
Advertising costs are not in any way tied to development costs either. Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re writing this or why I should have to explain this to you in depth at all, anyone who claims to be knowledgeable on the gaming industry and business should already master at least the very basics such as these, this is one step below 101. This section only serves to strip you of credibility for every time you proclaim your insight on anything gaming related, especially since you choose to actually keep arguing it on absolutely no grounds at all. This is by far the worst part of your already fumbling reasoning process in here.
And I sure hope you don’t think that I’m too dumb to respond to this; if you think so lowly of me, surely you’re wasting your time here.
* He gives me a proper new-age psych evaluation, in which he concludes that I am traumatized and depressed.
You sounded cynical so I addressed your cynicism.
You make a stereotype of business as nothing more than greedy money-grubbers.
I went over the top on purpose to make a point; I don’t actually envision Nintendo or anyone else sitting rubbing their hands and junk over the thought of snatching cash from kids with cancer. My message is that making money is the overarching goal of any business and I just get tired of you and a lot of others covering this profit drive in euphemism and sugar when it comes to Nintendo.
You make it sound like a company who exchanges money for a product can't have any other motivation than that.
Perhaps I did make it sound like that, see the above though.
There ARE a lot of businesses like that but every business is not like that.
I know that full well and I never stated as much either.
The following is the some of the most cynical garbage I have ever heard.
"Then there’s this notion of a Nintendo that is somehow more relevant, loving and caring than others, they have the only true passion for games and gaming. Why? Because they have different art direction? All other companies are just evil bastards who don’t like anything but your money and they’re too dense to see that they’re ruining the industry because Nintendo are the only ones who understand “what’s really going on”.
Nintendo are, believe it or not, a company with investors, they love to pocket your change as much as the next company, a change in color-palette doesn’t change that.
Which is more ethical? Don’t think for one second that Nintendo are some benign saint who swooped down to earth so that grandma and her cancerous grandkid could enjoy gaming together, laughing and living it up like a fairytale; they want grandma’s money and they want the cancer-kid money (offended? I’m making a point), they want everyone’s money like everyone else does, they’re running a business!"
I'm tired of that 'hip cynic' crap. People put that mess up as a shield.
It's safer to think the world is all dog-eat-dog than to think that genuine actions still exist in the world.
And they don't wanna take the chance on making a mistake so they hide behind the shield of cynicism. It's cowardly.
Note the “offended? I’m making a point” in parenthesis, this is a willfully over the top description to promote a point; companies want to and like to make money, Nintendo are no different. I am simply vexed that you keep implying that other companies don’t love what they do; you’re actually the one who seemingly thinks that almost all the others are behaving in such a way.
Nintendo's actions over the decades have proven they care about more than just the dollar, the yen, the euro.
There's no incentive to create a physically-durable lasting piece of hardware when people are buying multiple XBox 360s over & over after they break.
Again, I resent the notion you put forward that Xbox and PS customers are so simple-minded.
Any heartless company that you're proposing Nintendo to be would stop giving a damn & do exactly what Microsoft gets rewarded on doing.
I’m not proposing that they are heartless, I’m proposing that they aren’t strangers to some questionable practices (the Foxconn incident hurt them just as much as the other industry giants). You know what Microsoft’s “reward” for the RROD was? Massive consumer distrust, bad press and the most costly warranty solution for any consumer electronics product ever made. And this is, again, you implying that Xbox customers are mildly or wholly retarded.
When people pay for online like with XBox Live why in the hell would Nintendo insist on a free service like the Nintendo Network?
Because the flog people on peripherals and games that almost never drop in price and because their online service is highly inferior?
They were thinking about changing to a paid model. Seems they weren't appreciated for keeping it free.
In the end, they said no, it's free.
And that’s a good thing, as it stands; their online service is not worth any money in a lot of people’s opinion.
Nintendo is a company with integrity. These kind of businesses still exist as hard as it is for you to believe.
Hmm, well yes they are but they do have some really, really overpriced gear and aging software. See; when MS or Sony require payment for their online, this is a bad deal and poor integrity but when Nintendo charges 140$ for a Wii-mote + Nunchuck in my country, this is smart business somehow. Sony and MS also offer their “Greatest Hits” and “Platinum” software after a relatively short time on the market and they often have some really great deals on digital fare.
You could argue, like you and many others did in the 7th gen, that Nintendo’s refusal to lower their price on software for so long was justified because seeing the sales, the perceived value of these games was obviously high enough to warrant the price. But then you would have to reconcile with the fact that Sony and MS’ online services also have a high enough perceived value to warrant their price.
With no valid challengers in the handheld realm, it would be easy for Nintendo to artificially jack up the prices.
Nope, even with the GBA prices remained fair. Mass market as always.
Nintendo handheld hardware and software is and has been rather expensive in large parts of Europe, often the same as home consoles.
Edit: Gosh darnit, I stumbled across something on the internet, some guy called John Lucas apparently once had this to say on the 3DS: "Nintendo’s been getting out of control with prices since the DSi and now that $250 price tag they’re putting the 3DS under looks comical to the $250 Wi-Fi version of PlayStation Vita. Nintendo could get away with being less technologically horse-powered so long as they put up a more economically horse-sensed price. They ain’t got neither with the 3DS compared to Vita or the rest and that should scare the pure dung out of Nintendo."
Just because an entity get money doesn't make them phony, doesn't make them heartless.
I know, and this applies to other companies as well, including the two you most enjoy demonizing.
I showed countless examples of famous & unfamous people doing a job, getting paid for it, but enjoying the job BEYOND the paycheck.
And a lot of other people besides Nintendo do as well; they are not the sole subscriber to the love of the game (in a double sense).
The honest truth is Nintendo gives us a bargain. The best developer in the world selling their high quality works for a low price.
Best developer in the world is subjective, overall for me that is Valve, when you look at the total package they offer the market as a company. Anyway; prices of Nintendo software, peripherals and controllers are hardly low. Back in the day, if I wanted to buy a Wii and play MK with three buddies, I’d have to shell out 480$ for the controllers alone, basically the same as the cost of the console over here. And the price of MK itself stayed the same for a couple of years despite massive sales (don’t say “yeah, but Ninty games are worth full price for longer” when the argument is specifically “low price”).
You pay big for Bose speakers. You pay big for Beats Audio by Dr. Dre. You pay big for Corvettes, Lamborghinis, & Testarossas.
I would never waste money on any of that.
You pay big for Rolls-Royces. You pay big to stay in Trump Hotel. Cashmere costs & so does silk. Diamonds don't come cheap.
It’s kind of weird seeing you make these analogies, kinda makes me wonder what hotel, car make and gem 8or pebble) you consider the competition.
Any big-name designer is charging top dollar for their clothes. Living costs in Beverly Hills & Manhattan is too rich for you.
Yet Nintendo, the premiere name in gaming, gives you all that level of quality for a price most people can afford.
So do MS and Sony, their games cost the same and often even less due to “Greatest Hits” and “Platinum” releases. Not to mention on PC, there are some ridiculously amazing games for some insanely low prices to be had.
They give a damn & it shows. I'm man enough to recognize it. I'm man enough to celebrate it.
I don't need to hide behind the Cynic's Shield.”
And I’m man enough to enjoy the offerings of others on the same level. I’m also man enough to point out where I feel Nintendo (and others) are in the wrong. Do I need to remind you that the Wii U is the only 8th gen console with a region lock?
End of 2016 hardware sales:
Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.