By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
misterd on 05 December 2008
Edit Thread
Untamoi said:
nintendo_fanboy said:
Pristine20 said:
misterd said:
You think Nintendo based a worldwide brand name based on what a few American immigrant can or can't say?

Wii worked because the name implies togetherness (and urine), and because the two "i"'s look like abstract representations of people. The name simply summarized their philosophy for the console.

Now, I'll admit PlayStation is a very early 90s name, and XBox very late 90s attempt to sound cool. Both could probably use a new name, but they've simply sunk too much into the branding. They can't just drop their old names the way Nintendo can. Nintendo is "brand", so they can change the console names all they want. Sony and Microsoft's names are too tied up in other properties to be used for console branding. That is, when asked "did you get the new Nintendo?" everyone knows what it means. But asking"did you get the new Sony?" it could mean a tv, receiver, computer, console, etc.

 

This guy hit the nail on the head

Sure? so what has Nintendo done with the brand Gameboy? I'd say that this brand was way more popular and common than Xbox, but Nintendo let it die anyway and had success with that strategy. The question is, do you want to keep following the same strategy or do you want to change? if you want to change, you better change the name to, even if there's a strong brand behind it.

 

There is a big difference between Sony, MS and Nintendo. Nintendo only makes video games  so their name represents videogames (names like Gameboy and DS are not important). For MS and Sony over 90% of their business comes elsewhere so their name doesn't represent anything. "Did you get new Nintendo" means "did you get new Nintendo video game console" while "Did you get new Sony (or Microsoft)" could mean anything (ok, most would think MS as Windows and Sony as TV. Nobody as video game console).

 

He has a fair point - GameBoy was raking in green for Nintendo while the N64 and GameCube were flopping - perhaps "GameCube" was an attempt to build on the GameBoy name?

Anyway, I think the difference is this - Nintendo didn't just abandon the GameBoy name. It had a radical new idea, and didn't want to risk damaging an established name like GameBoy if the touch screen turned out to be the next Virtual Boy. So they were able to launch their "three legs" strategy, keeping the GameBoy on the market with a home console and the new DS brand. It was only when the DS showed itself to be a monster that Nintendo could safely retire the GB name.

I don't think Sony or MS have that option, unless they are going to do something radically different with their next set of home consoles. I suppose they could make Wii-like, stripped down consoles under the XBox and PlayStation brand, while introducing higher end PS3-type multimedia platforms under a new banner. I just don't see that working, though.