*Headdesk* Great, not even that code works any more. Anyone know some reliable code for putting up quotes so I can put up the other three posts he made?
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
@Lord:
As I wrote, I see Malstrom acknowledges MS efforts with Natal and its innovative and disrupting potential. Fine. Then he, as usual, ruins his flash of objectivity predicting it won't work. It's always black or white for him, while actually Natal could more easily have a partial success, carving for itself one or more comfortable niches (like dance and fitness games), possibly grabbing a slice of Balance Board market too (although BB would remain leader for all the game kinds it's best suited for).
BTW, denying Natal will succeed after acknowledging its strong points doesn't make much sense, unless its plain ansimple exorcising of his fears.
About Sony Move, I can agree it's more defensive and less offensive than Natal, but does this automatically mean its total defeat? History is full of defenders winning against the attackers and even fuller of inconclusive battles where each part ends roughly in the same situation it started. Malstrom systematically denies these possible outcomes.
Another flaw in Malstrom reasoning is that he writes as Nintendo had infinite time at its disposal, but this is simply not true and it means that each time Sony or MS manage to temporarily reduce the gap from Nintendo, they make disruption less likely, and no bombastic rethoric can change this.
One last thing: Christensen theories perfectly explain why and how past disruptions happened, but they can't predict future or whether a disruption attempt will succeed, totally or partially, unless you don't take account of every possible significant factor, and Malstrom, downplaying or plainly ignoring every possible factor against his wishes, is not applying the theory correctly.
The plain silliness he's spewing against MW2 and its sales clearly show he can't accept reality when it goes against his theories.
And despite Heavy Rain not being a blockbuster, it's getting enough success for its genre, it's most likely going to sell more on a single platform that its ancestor, Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecies in USA), did on four platforms, so his dig at it is quite silly too.
This doesn't mean Wii will lose its leadership, it will actually most probably keep it, but disruption is another thing.
And actually disruption really happened regarding gaming, a whole new market was born, but it simply didn't disrupt the old one, they are living side by side, the most likely outcome will be that Wii will keep the biggest share of new market plus its loyal fans and a small share of the old one, while MS and Sony will keep the largest share of the old one plus their loyal fans and they'll eventually get a small share of the new one. As little as Move and Natal could be they'll add a few sales anyway, they won't generate negative sales, so Nintendo will end this gen first with a share between 40% and 50%.
One last thing: since PC gaming was born I countless times heard alternatively about PC's or console's doom. Neither of them happened. This doesn't mean MS or Sony are failproof, actually they aren't, they'll most likely eventually both fail like the vast majority of the giants of the past, but if tens million wishes didn't make them fail, it won't be Malstrom's wish to do it.
| Alby_da_Wolf said: @Lord: As I wrote, I see Malstrom acknowledges MS efforts with Natal and its innovative and disrupting potential. Fine. Then he, as usual, ruins his flash of objectivity predicting it won't work. It's always black or white for him, while actually Natal could more easily have a partial success, carving for itself one or more comfortable niches (like dance and fitness games), possibly grabbing a slice of Balance Board market too (although BB would remain leader for all the game kinds it's best suited for). BTW, denying Natal will succeed after acknowledging its strong points doesn't make much sense, unless its plain ansimple exorcising of his fears. |
Malstrom seems like pretty negative person, though in all honesty what we can actually say about Natal up to this point? Nothing. The same goes for it's innovative and disrupting potential since this industry is about software rather than hardware. Let them show us some games, then we judge. Up to this point it's all and only about hype, hype and hype.
Carving for niches isn't the way to go, I'm absolutely sure MS thinks the same way. They better create a best-seller software product for it with new values for customers that Nintendo didn't match.
|
I dug out a box of my old DOS games. I put this program called Boxer on my Macbook, which is a frontend for DOSbox that basically makes it simple to install and run old DOS games in OSX. None of the diskette-based ones will work, of course, but fortunately, I have a few on CD. To make a long story short, I literally just spent all night playing Ultima Underworld 1, and not because it takes six hours to do anything like in JRPGs. It’s just that much fun. Then I spent some of this morning playing Commander Keen IV. So yeah, I can see what you were saying about how gaming used to be “rock and roll.” They used to be about pushing boundaries, and not in the sense of more sex or more swearing, or in the sense of blurring the boundary between ‘game’ and ‘movie,’ but in the sense of just doing something you’d never seen before. And it used to be okay if the 3D engine was a little ragged or if the 2D platformer had only 16 colors, because you were doing or seeing something completely new. I guess I just forgot how awesome it used to be. Maybe I need to get on ebay and try to track down some CDs for old DOS games. My PS3 is going to gather dust for a while, and yeah, I mainly blame you. -JPS
-
P.S. The best thing about Boxer? It’s actually easier to get these games running on my Macbook than it was to get them running on my DOS machine back in the day. I never did get Ultima Underworld 2 running with sound, but it works like a champ now! -
P.P.S. I wouldn’t complain if you occasionally showcased an old DOS game that time forgot.  ____ I’ve thought about recommending some older games in the past. One issue with doing so is that many times nostalgia can cloud visions and these old games, without any nostalgia, are not fun to play today due to being spoiled on better graphics and sound in modern games. However, I have come up with five games I believe that are fun today and stand the test of time. I’ll put them up soon. -
When you play the old DOS games, you can really see just how shallow and soul-less most modern games are today. Why does it always feel that the standards of gaming quality keep lowering year after year? Of course, review score bias keeps getting more and more ridiculous to compensate. I suspect that is a big reason why gamers are turning away from gaming. - Nintendo’s greatest competitor is not Sony/Microsoft, and it is not even movies, music, and other entertainment. Nintendo’s greatest competitor is their own past. The Wii must compete with the NES, the SNES, the N64, and the Gamecube, along with all the other consoles of the past and all the PC games and arcade games of the past. If I wish to play a game, I can easily hook up my NES and play it instead of buying a new game. - I even know Atari 2600 gamers who do nothing but play their Atari 2600 complete with the wood furnishings. It is like discovering a pocket of natives that did not join civilization. These Atari 2600 gamers are still stuck in 1985 mentality and believe Nintendo destroyed gaming with the NES. I kid you not! When Nintendo competes against their past, their sales explode. Wii Sports competed against the NES sports games. Wii Play competed against many of the games of the past from Atari’s “Tanks” to NES Duck Hunt. Super Mario Brothers 5 competed against the prior 2d Marios. Like at the end of Zelda 2, Nintendo’s ultimate nemesis is their own shadow. With PC gaming, I wish they would compete against the past. I wish I had a Civilization game that competed against Civilization 2, for exampe, or a Command and Conquer game that competed against the first ones. The number of gamers SHOULD be growing with time due to population growth and more disposable income. The reason why gamers are not growing I suspect is because of declining quality. When people became gamers in the 80s or early 90s, they saw quality of gaming at that time as the standard. They were considered the ‘norm’. Today, games feel so much inferior that it is no point to even buying them anymore. I’ve been too disappointed time and time again. One of the things about Blizzard is that they are in constant competition with their past. Starcraft 2 will be compared with a fine tooth comb to Starcraft 1. Blizzard has to maintain the standards they already established or they will lose customers.
Ultima Underworld 2 is awesome. I don’t believe I finished it. Perhaps I should do so. To the young reader, understand that the game was made before 3d cards. The year is 1993. Use your imagination more and your eyes a little less. There is much going on in the game. The music still sounds phenomenal. The photo-realistic portraits seen in both Underworld 2 and Ultima VII Part 2 still amaze me. And these games just ooze personality.
For example, how on Earth can this C64 introduction just ooze epic-ness and personality in a way games cannot even come close today? Perhaps gaming is more than graphics, processor speed, and business models. Perhaps gaming is about the Human spirit. |
|
The reason why Nintendo’s main three series of Mario, Zelda, and Metroid succeed is because they have richly textured worlds. They are fun universes to come back to, and they never get old. Every console cycle, Nintendo puts out the same exact games which is usually one incarnation of the main three. This is why E3 2009 was pretty disappointing outside of Mario 5 since MORE Metroid and 3d Mario is just overkill. Nintendo ought to do something different. With Wii having a longer lifecycle, this is an opportunity to put out a new type of core game instead of giving another sequel to one of those main three. After the main three, what other richly textured worlds does Nintendo have? The only one I can think of is Starfox (which should come back too). Earthbound/Mother is dead on arrival as it won’t sell outside Japan. Donkey Kong Country doesn’t have much of a universe except being wild in the jungle. It is annoying how Nintendo keeps using Donkey Kong for ‘experimental titles’. And Donkey Kong Country’s purpose was to be Mario 5 (which it very much wasn’t but saved the SNES from Genesis overcoming it anyway). There is StarTropics but that is a bad version of Zelda. F-Zero sold horribly in its last incarnation so that is out. Kirby is just LOL. What other series does Nintendo have? Mach Rider would be kinda cool to see a modern version. But Kid Icarus is the most interesting because, outside of the main three, it has the richest textured world. Everyone instantly understands shooting bows and the mythological background. One of the big problems with Nintendo is that they are too gung ho about re-inventing the gameplay wheel instead of re-inventing the content wheel. For example, Nintendo developers would rather make ANOTHER 3d Mario with ‘new gameplay mechanics’ instead of carving out new content of another game. New gameplay mechanics is boring. New content is exciting. How could a new Kid Icarus game work? Very easily. You use the fantastic bow mechanics from Wii Sports Resort. Moving and flying could be easily done with the nunchucka. I’m thinking more of a third person type of game that zooms in when you draw the bow (like Wii Sports Resort). However, in 3d, Kid Icarus could not become a platformer because platformers in 3d just suck. But NES Kid Icarus wasn’t really about platforming anyway. In the final stage, you are straight up flying like a Gradius game. To remove frustration, if Kid Icarus falls off, his wings ‘come on’ and float him back up not unlike Mario ‘falling off’ in the HUB in Galaxy or Pit in Brawl. What is most amusing to me are the few who squeal when any talk of a new Kid Icarus game comes up. Some of these are legitimate outcries from people who played Kid Icarus when the game was not new and found that the harsh mechanics didn’t age well. However, it is interesting to note that many of these squealers are the same ones who squealed when any talk of 2d Mario returning to consoles (and kept blasting Mario 5 until it came out). [Disclaimer: Not inferring that Kid Icarus game would have the impact as Mario 5. I don't think any game could have the impact as 2d Mario does.] The best advantage Nintendo has compared to its competitors is that Nintendo has a rich past. During the N64 and Gamecube decline, observers such as myself correlated this decline with Nintendo moving AWAY from its NES roots. Note that the two Nintendo games that have biggest ties to the NES roots (Wii Sports and Super Mario Brothers 5) are the biggest games on the system… or on ANY system. In other words, competitors do NOT want Nintendo going back to its roots. The competitors cannot compete there. When Super Mario Brothers 5 made its debut at E3 2009, there was palpable fear that I detected. They were right to be scared. And none of the distorting and viral marketing of Mario 5 being a ‘DS port’ to ‘Nintendo being lazy’ could stop the juggernaut. I am noticing a similar fear about Nintendo bringing back sleeping franchises such as Kid Icarus. Keep in mind Metroid was asleep until Metroid Prime. So why the fear? Competitors do not want the possibility of a fourth universe being added to Nintendo’s constellation. Worse, it could very well cut off franchises at the knees like God of War (which is only mythological in the superficial sense). God of War is not a family game. Children do not play God of War. Even better, the original Icarus story had his father and the journey was of two, not one. Multiplayer co-op would be awesome. Ever notice how Industry people go ballistic on the Nintendo games before they become mega-hits? And note how they are completely supportive of Nintendo games that have little to no impact on the console sales? I hear the Industry cheering wildly for more 3d Mario, more Metroid games like Other M, and for a more ‘hardcore’ Zelda. But when games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit or Mario 5 were presented, these same Industry people became de-arranged. It is important to differentiate these Industry people from our hardcore friends. Industry people instantly knew Mario 5 would be a threat which is why we got rained on with constant ‘it is a DS port’ and other such misinformation. Even to this day, Industry people will not acknowledge the sales of Mario 5 and pretend it does not exist while touting Modern Warfare 2’s sales. Let me give another example of the squealing: the vitality sensor. The product might become big. It might not either. However, if Nintendo just made Galaxy 3, the console momentum’s fate clearly isn’t going to go up. The big three series of Mario, Metroid, and Zelda is very tired. The universes, all of which are represented on the Wii, have had their say. More Mario, Metroid, and Zelda isn’t going to excite anyone. However, a new Kid Icarus or a new Starfox game might excite people. “What about a brand new universe?” Nintendo isn’t ready for that. They are extremely rusty at new universes as the last one they made (if you don’t count Pikmin) would be Starfox which is nearing almost two decades ago. And if you look at how Nintendo is treating the current big three series, you can see this company has serious problems in the content department. All three series cannot do anything new in the prism of content. All they can do is offer more gameplay mechanics. Hyrule of Twilight Princess is not much different from any other Zelda. Mario Galaxy isn’t that new from, say, Mario 64. Mario 5 recycled content from the previous four Mario games. Metroid is so bad that Other M has become nothing but a giant retcon. For all the innovation Nintendo talks about, they sure do not innovate in the content space. In each game, the player is doing the same exact thing as before (but with new mechanics!). Bringing back an older franchise wouldn’t be as risky as Nintendo making brand new content but would require them to make some sort of new content. That Kid ICarus universe certainly would have to be fleshed out. This would be harder than Metroid Prime and Ocarina of Time as there is no 16-bit Kid Icarus game to pole vault from. Overall, the big issue is that people are sick of the same Mario/Metroid/Zelda sequels. Doing something different such as bringing back an old franchise would be very well received even if the game doesn’t come out as good as people hoped. And out of all the sleeping Nintendo franchises, Kid Icarus and Starfox are the best candidates. Nintendo ought to take advantage of the longer console lifecycle to revive not just ‘old franchise’ but making games with different content. When the Wii is over, Nintendo may not have this opportunity again in a future console. |
|
Don’t you think it’s amazing? Look at this: In your own words, Sony is doing a defensive co-opt move, while Microsoft an offensive one. How more by the book can this industry get? Everyone are doing exactly what Christensen defined. Hell, the results are also exactly what he said they will be, not surprisingly. First, Nintendo pulls out a perfect low-end disruption, then a few years later, at the same time, one of its two competitors does a defensive co-opt while the other an offensive co-opt. Whether these too will be perfect is still up in the air (though as far as Sony is concerned the result isn’t interesting anyway). Disruption has generally been confined mostly to electronics. Video games are not really in the electronic business. They are in the entertainment business. And there aren’t any entertainment examples I remember reading about in the disruption literature. Nintendo is a master of business jujitsu. In 2006, Nintendo was said to be unable to compete and should drop out of the console business altogether. In 2010, Nintendo is dominating and their competitors cannot compete with Nintendo. What a turnaround! And what is more interesting is how Nintendo successfully shifted the battlefield from graphics and processors to interfaces. This is important because Sony wants the battlefield to shift to who has the best movie playback (i.e. Blu-Ray) to Microsoft wanting the battlefield to shift to who has the best online “infrastructure” (i.e. Xbox Live). This isn’t the first time a massive disruption occurred with video game consoles. The first time was over twenty years ago when American game centric computers were disrupted by a foreign game company called Nintendo. The NES nailed the Expanded Market and there was a Core Market. The Expanded Market were families and children who the game centric computers did not want or cared to sell. The Core gamers the NES was carrying over were the nomadic Atari Era gamers. The equivalent of the Virtual Console then were the arcade ports on the NES (games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong which had no business being on a machine made years after Donkey Kong came out).
The above is the equivalent to the ‘classic controller’ for the NES. Gentle reader, I gravitated to this controller because it felt more natural coming from the Arcade and Atari Era. ‘Crazy Japanese controllers’ were what the NES controllers were often called! Like the Wii, the NES controller changed everything. Even the DS, that preceded the Wii, is very much like the Game and Watch, that preceded the NES. The excitement of the NES Era was similar to the Atari Era in that gaming was growing as a medium. We had such hopes for the future! But then a fork in the road appeared. With the NES success, competitors arose. Nintendo chose to jump into the red ocean against Sega during the 16-bit generation. And this fight only brought heavyweight Sony into the console business to crush all console makers for refusing to expand gaming. Nintendo is approaching a similar fork in the road again. Some will say that making motion plus games for the Wii means that Nintendo is jumping in the red ocean. This is not so. Nintendo must fulfill the consumers’ expectations of motion controlled games as that is why they bought the Wii in the first place. If Nintendo does not do this, Wii owners will not buy the next Nintendo console since they will not suspect Nintendo supporting its ‘feature’. If Nintendo released a Wii HD, that would definitely be jumping into the red ocean. The wrong fork in the road would be a Wii HD. The right fork in the road would be to do something else to further expand the medium of gaming. |
|
Just look at the questions James Brightman asks Reggie Fils-Aime. How sad. What is most pathetic are the questions that begin with… “Pachter said…” Can you journalists not think for yourselves? There are more “analysts” out there than just Pachter. Why don’t you start quoting them too just so we can at least have some diversity of thought? Years ago I used to like reading interviews with the Nintendo execs. Now, there is no point in reading them because the questions are nothing more than Industry cliches. “Why aren’t you making Wii HD?” “Is the Wii a fad?” “Will the new motion controllers destroy the Wii?” I wish game journalism was ‘high definition’. Good grief! |
|
You know it is bad when Sony has resorted to a blog taking suggestions from users. This is not a sign of strength. You can go here and share your advice to Sony on how to improve the Playstation Experience. After the analog stick, rumble, motion controls, I have submitted the following: The Playstation Experience can be very much improved by not copying Nintendo. A Blue Ocean awaits… Thy Lord and Master, Malstrom I look forward to Sony implementing my idea immediately. |
mai said:
Malstrom seems like pretty negative person, though in all honesty what we can actually say about Natal up to this point? Nothing. The same goes for it's innovative and disrupting potential since this industry is about software rather than hardware. Let them show us some games, then we judge. Up to this point it's all and only about hype, hype and hype. Carving for niches isn't the way to go, I'm absolutely sure MS thinks the same way. They better create a best-seller software product for it with new values for customers that Nintendo didn't match. |
I agree that both Sony and MS will aim at a bigger target, but honestly, coming so late, they'll most likely have to content themselves of what they can grab. Just like Malstrom should take account of positive factors for Wii competitors, the latter must take time into account too. Time helps them when they resist against Nintendo's attacks, but it works against them obtaining much more than just avoiding Nintendo's share to grow. The longer they keep the situation almost stationary before counter-attacking, the less the overall situation will change, as existing user base will become more and more overwhelming compared to the difference that the novelties could produce. So starting with the goal of carving niches isn't the right attitude, they must try their best, but they'll have to accept that likely outcome.
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Not totally. He's right, for example, about the spin, but then he spins things too. And as almost usual for him, he seasons his articles with his cheesy and patronizing attitude. But when he downplays every possible good result of Wii competitors (for example MW2 sales) he touches the bottom. I'm even surprised he doesn't totally trash Natal, but overall what he wrote about Sony and MS motion control systems and sales results for games on their platforms speaks of insecurity and being utterly pissed that his predictions of disruption look more and more unlikely to come true. Sorry, Malstrom, your craved career of overpaid analyst, possibly for Nintendo, ends here, before even starting. What a shame, beaten at this even by Pachter! |
Wow, I can't tell if you're a blind fanboy, or stupid, good job
Disruption takes decades in most cases and yet you're arguing about just a few years as indicator of no disruption, actually Move and NATAL are pretty clear signs its going on
axt113 said:
Disruption takes decades in most cases and yet you're arguing about just a few years as indicator of no disruption, actually Move and NATAL are pretty clear signs its going on |
Thx a lot for the compliments, but I suspect you were watching a mirror.
Disruption takes decades? I agree, but a console gen lasting a single decade is already an achievement, and when a new gen begins it's all over and back to the beginning, so if most of the disruption doesn't happen during a single decade time span, in console world it's very unlikely it will be completed. The heart of the issue is that most markets have more continuity and not a sharp division in generations, but console market has it, so disruption needs to be faster to happen. As I wrote elsewhere, disruption really happened, regarding gameplay and controls, but not economically, under that aspect Nintendo conquered again the leadership, but it's quite far from disrupting competition, actually 2nd and 3rd have greater market shares and absolute number sales than in most previous generations.
I won't tell you are a blind fanboy, though, as it's obvious that the situation is different: Malstrom special glasses directly project on retinas an alternate black-and-white, edge-sharpened reality.
I won't report you either, as you do a job to discredit the sect of Malstromites so outstanding it would be really a shame to stop you.
RolStoppable said:
Do economics exclude balance sheets? |
No. This doesn't change the fact that nothing can guarantee to Nintendo's next console the same potential of Wii, so for disruption to totally happen, it must be completed to most of its parts during this gen. So each time either MS or Sony manage to slow Wii's advance, disruption of them in this market becomes less likely. Disruption of gameplay already happened, I don't deny it, even the incumbents now need to provide the new style of gaming besides the old one, as they are roughly of the same size and no sane businessman would give up 50% of users to a competitor without at least trying to get some.
And this besides the fact that Malstrom, to make facts fit Christensen's theories, downplays, dismisses or ridicules every possible factor in favour of MS or Sony, and this is plain childish. (Actually he admitted the innovating and aggressive potential of Natal, and this surprised me considering his usual attitude, but then he dismisses it too adding that he thinks it won't succeed).
Anyhow, we're still at the beginning of Wii's 4th year, and Wii, as market leader, has more power to decide how long this gen will last, so a lot of things can happene, we'll see, but the current situation is that MS and Sony are succeeding to prevent Wii's share to even reach 50% and that they are both becoming more aggressive and less defensive.
Edit: all this doesn't change the fact that Wii will win this gen, another thing I never denied, but it looks like victory is not enough for Malstrom.
Another thing: are we sure Nintendo wants disruption?
"Anyhow, we're still at the beginning of Wii's 4th year, and Wii, as market leader, has more power to decide how long this gen will last, so a lot of things can happene, we'll see, but the current situation is that MS and Sony are succeeding to prevent Wii's share to even reach 50% and that they are both becoming more aggressive and less defensive."
They didn't prevent it. Wii lost getting above it when momentum lapsed last year.
"Another thing: are we sure Nintendo wants disruption?"
They've been saying gaming will die if it keeps the current path, so they sure as hell want it.
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
| Alby_da_Wolf said:
Another thing: are we sure Nintendo wants disruption? |
Malstrom got it covered, just read "Nintendo Hides Its Strategy by Putting it In Plain Sight" section of the article. In fact, Iwata speech at GDC'06 (the one about Coke and Pepsi) is enough to see things in a new light.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
