Quantcast
Take a video game company you think is failing and steer them in the right direction.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Take a video game company you think is failing and steer them in the right direction.

curl-6 said:

"Nintendo should abandon one of the fastest selling systems in history and go third party", LMAO.

Jigsawx1 said:

Yeah for me its Nintendo.

1. Make a Hardware that can compete with the others

That would be suicide for them, the market cannot support three similar systems to succeed, it never has. Going head-to-head with PS5 would be the Gamecube all over again. Nintendo succeed when they carve out their own niche instead of trying to be just be another Playstation/Xbox.

I'd actually be curious if the answer changes if Sony or Microsoft drop off. If there was only a Playstation or only an Xbox, could Nintendo try a power approach again? 

I adore my Switch and liked my Wii U (got plenty of use from it), so I have no problem with the current status beyond third party behavior. 



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network
KrspaceT said:
curl-6 said:

"Nintendo should abandon one of the fastest selling systems in history and go third party", LMAO.

That would be suicide for them, the market cannot support three similar systems to succeed, it never has. Going head-to-head with PS5 would be the Gamecube all over again. Nintendo succeed when they carve out their own niche instead of trying to be just be another Playstation/Xbox.

I'd actually be curious if the answer changes if Sony or Microsoft drop off. If there was only a Playstation or only an Xbox, could Nintendo try a power approach again? 

I adore my Switch and liked my Wii U (got plenty of use from it), so I have no problem with the current status beyond third party behavior. 

If Xbox dropped out of the race maybe, but I think at this point that the blue ocean mentality is so ingrained in Nintendo's culture and the hybrid concept has worked so well for them that even with only Playstation to compete against they'd still avoid making a powerful standard console.



Atari - whatever company that controls you now just stop. Your system will sell less than the Ouya.



sethnintendo said:
Atari - whatever company that controls you now just stop. Your system will sell less than the Ouya.

Current owner of the Atari trademark is actually a classic game company named Infogrames. I saw this logo in quite some games back in the day:



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Atari is like the ultimate zombie company. How many Ataris have filed for bankruptcy at this point? They should have just sold the Atari brand and IP to Namco and called it a day.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

"Nintendo should abandon one of the fastest selling systems in history and go third party", LMAO.

Jigsawx1 said:

Yeah for me its Nintendo.

1. Make a Hardware that can compete with the others

That would be suicide for them, the market cannot support three similar systems, it never has. Going head-to-head with PS5 would be the Gamecube all over again. Nintendo succeed when they carve out their own niche instead of trying to be just be another Playstation/Xbox.

it doesnt have to be as  powerful as a ps or xbox but it should be strong enough to get a good 3rd party support. The Switch would not be a worse console if it would have Battlefield, The division and a cod . I mean some rounds battlefield on a couch with a handhelp switch  would be a reason to buy it for me.



Jigsawx1 said:
curl-6 said:

"Nintendo should abandon one of the fastest selling systems in history and go third party", LMAO.

That would be suicide for them, the market cannot support three similar systems, it never has. Going head-to-head with PS5 would be the Gamecube all over again. Nintendo succeed when they carve out their own niche instead of trying to be just be another Playstation/Xbox.

it doesnt have to be as  powerful as a ps or xbox but it should be strong enough to get a good 3rd party support. The Switch would not be a worse console if it would have Battlefield, The division and a cod . I mean some rounds battlefield on a couch with a handhelp switch  would be a reason to buy it for me.

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support, it's just up to publishers whether they want to provide that support. The Switch could run COD, Activision just can't be bothered.



curl-6 said:
Jigsawx1 said:

it doesnt have to be as  powerful as a ps or xbox but it should be strong enough to get a good 3rd party support. The Switch would not be a worse console if it would have Battlefield, The division and a cod . I mean some rounds battlefield on a couch with a handhelp switch  would be a reason to buy it for me.

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support, it's just up to publishers whether they want to provide that support. The Switch could run COD, Activision just can't be bothered.

The DS could run COD if Activision was willing to put the time and effort into distilling that game down into something that can be played on a DS. The point is the amount of effort that takes, and it just not being worth that effort.

Let's put it this way. If it costs significantly more to port a PS4 game to Switch than it does to port it to Xbox one, while at the same time expecting significantly less sales, it becomes very difficult to justify that effort. If a port requires minimal effort than the sales that port needs to have to justify it is much smaller. This is where Nintendo missed the mark.



potato_hamster said:
curl-6 said:

Switch is powerful enough to get third party support, it's just up to publishers whether they want to provide that support. The Switch could run COD, Activision just can't be bothered.

The DS could run COD if Activision was willing to put the time and effort into distilling that game down into something that can be played on a DS. The point is the amount of effort that takes, and it just not being worth that effort.

Let's put it this way. If it costs significantly more to port a PS4 game to Switch than it does to port it to Xbox one, while at the same time expecting significantly less sales, it becomes very difficult to justify that effort. If a port requires minimal effort than the sales that port needs to have to justify it is much smaller. This is where Nintendo missed the mark.

Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable.

More demanding games than COD have been ported, so the failure squarely lies with Activision.



curl-6 said:
potato_hamster said:

The DS could run COD if Activision was willing to put the time and effort into distilling that game down into something that can be played on a DS. The point is the amount of effort that takes, and it just not being worth that effort.

Let's put it this way. If it costs significantly more to port a PS4 game to Switch than it does to port it to Xbox one, while at the same time expecting significantly less sales, it becomes very difficult to justify that effort. If a port requires minimal effort than the sales that port needs to have to justify it is much smaller. This is where Nintendo missed the mark.

Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable.

More demanding games than COD have been ported, so the failure squarely lies with Activision.

"Porting COD to Switch is much less investment than porting COD from PS3/360 to Wii, yet that was done several times and was profitable."

Source? Or is that just an assumption?