By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Smashchu2 on 09 November 2008
Edit Thread

OP: The comparison is not equal. The game you listed on the 360/PS3 were made by multple different companies. Nintendo is only one (given they have other development teams making games for the parent company). Of course they will release fewer games when you compair them to multiple 3rd parties who will all be working on different games at the same time.
Nintendo released quite a few games. Of course, this year has been slower then normal, but that tends to happen. Remember that most of the big hitters were released early this year.
Lastly, "casual" titles are just an essembly line of games. Nintendo has mentioned they put their 1st strong developers on those titles, so they is probably some delays and upheavals that happens during development.

c0rd said:
Million said:
c0rd said:

Since the ball is in Nintendo's court now, the only way the lead can be taken away from them is if they're disrupted. This means another Wii-like breakthrough... a nextBox / PS4 with just upgraded motion controls, multimedia features and graphics cannot win. They will need a new weapon if they want to take Nintendo's new spot.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement , everyone would have argued the PS3 was sure to suceed based on the PS2's sucess in comparison to it's competiton but what everyone didn't anticipate was a change in the competition's strategy , Sony's success last gen was the main cause of their faliures this generation.

This generation will serve as a learning oportunity for Sony and MS in the same way that MS & GC learnt a lesson last gen ( obviously MS didn't learn as much as Nintendo) . Sony has far more development resources than Nintendo and even if they're aim isn't as good as Nintys when it comes to targeting this new demographic , they have a shit load of fire power.

Nintendo did what everyone least expected to do when the GC didn't suceed much , why would Sony do what everyone expects them to do when the PS3 isn't suceeding much ? it's ironic.

The PS3 didn't fail because of the PS2's success, it failed because it overshot the market. They just kept with the incrementing of graphics (PS1 -> PS2 -> PS3), but it didn't work this gen because the PS2's graphics are good enough.

It doesn't matter what MS / Sony has learned this gen if they can't come up with anything new. Look at it this way - even if Nintendo knew they needed a disruptive console to stop Sony from dominating in the PS2 era, there wasn't much they could do until this gen. Since customers were still satisfied with just an upgrade in graphics (PS1 -> PS2), Nintendo was forced to do the same. It was only this gen where graphics no longer mattered, and only Nintendo picked up on it.

The Wii wasn't proof that anybody has a shot at #1, it only proved that disruptive consoles do. If you disagree with the statement, does that mean you think a PS4 that's essentially a stronger PS3 with Wii controls tacked on has a shot at retaking the lead? They need more than that to dethrone Nintendo. You even say yourself, Sony would have to do something unexpected. The problem is, it isn't easy coming up with something new like the Wii.

I want to add on this comment.

Typically, the disrupted company(ies) can not fight off the disruption. They get bogged down by their values that they will lose all credability from their current market. So, they either have to try and halt the disruption (which probably won't happen) or move up the tiers. If they do the latter, then they'll eventually die, either leaving the market or becoming a small nitch.

I'm glad there are some people here who understand disruption. It is rare on message boards.