Why can't 3rd parties compete against Nintendo?

[fkusumot]

Lots of interesting, provocative and insightful responses. Thanks! You know how you are, just about everyone who's posted so far.

My own perspective has been shaped over the last year and 1/2 by the thoughtful members of the community and a particular blogger named Malstrom. Although I've taken a lot away from my readings of his Malstrom's essays I've also noticed that his analysis can be very sloppy and he's often too vigorous when he need not be and not vigorous enough and simply bypass a point that needs a trifling bit of logic. That's why I love the thoughtful posters here, they work the realism back into the theory.

Some posts that have led up to my current views are these:

fkusumot said 07/13/07:

Nintendo, self proclaimedely, was never about the games. They've always held the position that they're about the "Entertainment". The entertainment market is much larger than the gaming market. Is Nintendo still advancing that philosophy?

It looks to me that Nintendo is rolling out the "Japan" strategy. If you study what has happened with the DS it can prove illuminating. It is very telling that a title like "Brain Age 2", a sequel, has outsold the original (in Japan). For all gamers, "hardcore" (whatever that means) and casual, the question for the future is "would you rather have the games that are released in english (or some other translation) or would you rather be in the position of the Japanese gamer that is getting a huge and deep variety of good titles now?" There are so many great games that never make it out of Japan. That may be changing if Nintendo can capture a demographic outside of Japan to support a more unified development program.

Another way of putting it is that Nintendo is going back to their Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System roots. Of course they never really left that idea behind although sometimes it seemed they forgot. At E3 they pretty much announced that they were interested in selling more consoles and games. Lots more. They did that through showing off games that people will enjoy playing and devices that will supplement that enjoyment. Nintendo (and Sony and Microsoft) will judge the success or failure of "E3" by looking at the bottom line. That's what I heard and if anyone tells you different they're a GD liar.

The Wii Board is guaranteed to sell out for forever (or until hell freezes over, or they make a better one). It will sell at least five to every nursing home in North America, Japan and Europe. People will be buying them for their parents to try and get them to move around some more and, not surprisingly, for themselves. It will be used in successful FPS's, sports games, rhythm/dance games (duh), a new Mario Party and a ton more. It will be used by doctors, physical therapists, sports trainers and dietitians.

Nintendo's self stated demographic has always been "E" for EveryOne. It seems like they've stumbled onto the winning formula again and caught the big one. Well, they know how to ride that wave.

 

fkusumot said 08/06/07:

Nintendo is making entertainment for people. When other software publishing companies learn how to make entertainment for the Nintendo entertainment interface that people enjoy there will be more entertaining titles coming from those companies for people possessing those interfaces to enjoy. Successful companies sell a lot of entertainment and the thing that sells the most is the entertainment that people buy. Companies with laudable business plans consistently create good entertainment for entertainment interfaces that can support their costs and that people desire to buy. It's a very simple game to understand and a very complex game to master.

 

fkusumot said on 08/15/07:

When I started gaming I played card games and board games. Video games did not exist when I started gaming. I was always attracted to the more in-depth games. Chess, Go, the games by TSR and several of the Avalon Hill games. From that period the games that I think are the best are the ones that are the most accessible, i.e., Go, Chess, Acquire, D-Day, Gin, Poker and Diplomacy.

The game of Go can be be easily played by a seven year old. Chess is also very accessible and there have been several instances of 8-12 year old prodigies that can beat master level players. Diplomacy is a complex social game with a very simple rule set. Most good card games (except Bridge) can be played by preteens and the strategy board games can be played by adolescents. All accessible and gratifying to varying degrees for players of all ages.

Look at the game of Go. It has one of the simplest interfaces of any game created. A child can play it. It has an almost perfect handicapping system. Yet Go is perhaps the deepest game ever created and the most beautiful in its simplicity and elegance. The game is perfectly accessible and will almost certainly be enjoyed by a person who has a predilection for the genre (strategy board game). The difficulty is not in playing the game it is in mastering the game.

Looking at video games some of the very best and most successful are extremely accessible. Space Invaders, Asteroids and Tetris are some earlier examples. Current examples are Meteos, Bejeweled (Puzzle Quest), Lumines and the excellent rhythm games. These games can be very difficult, especially when you are trying to improve your score or to beat someone else's high score. Difficulty and accessibility can co-exist.

Looking at the world of games past and present it seems to me and I think to many others that the best games are those where difficulty and accessibility exist in a kind of tense harmony. These are the games that become very popular, possibly last for generations and then last the test of time. Some game designers are motivated by the challenge of creating one of these gems and perhaps Miyamoto is one of them.

fkusumot said on 08/31/07:

I think Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy has contributed greatly to their success. They want to be dominant in markets where there is little or no competition. Fortuitous events (for Nintendo) have allowed them to compete this generation in a space where there is not much competition, hence they do well. Nintendo has been very good lately (and historically) at establishing genres that they get to then define and profit from. I also attribute some of Nintendo's success to their old fashioned business plan of making profits and a history of being profitable in the long term.

fkusumot said on 08/31/07:

Nintendo, at it's best, comes up with games that they would like to play and then creates hardware that makes it possible. That's the real innovation. Nintendo will always leverage their popular franchises, that's just business sense. When Nintendo gets it right they make games (often using their franchise characters) that can only have the definitive version on their hardware.

Short version: AT E3 2007 it was obvious Nintendo was going back their Famicon roots by showing off games that people would enjoy playing and devices that would supplement that enjoyment. The Wii Board, once unveiled, became the ultimate long leg monster of Famitsu and NPD charts.

Nintendo's focus is on making entertainment for people. Some game makers are motivated by the challenge of creating a fun game that everyone can enjoy. One of them works for Nintendo and his name is Shigeru Miyamoto.

Nintendo has always been very good at establishing genres they get to define and profit from. That is because Nintendo, at it's best, comes up with games that they would like to play ang then create hardware to make it possibble. When Nintendo gets it right they make games that can only have the definitive version on their console. Games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play, Wii Music and Mario Kart.

I blame Wii Fit.  

 

it is oftuns vetter to leev this lost plsaec heir floklore has it that is someone destroys the thread by posting more then they are fates to die a slow painful death while alone. Each poster beyond the first adds the misery and becomes a new victim of teh cures. But heh, that's just me.