"Foaming At Mouth Nintendo Hatred" (A Malstrom Article).

[Stefan.De.Machtige]

richardhutnik said:

Stefan.De.Machtige said:

richardhutnik said:
My take:
1. Nintendo brought things on itself, by losing the (hard)core audience. The first break happened with Mortal Kombat. Sega jumped all over it. Nintendo then continued to remain married to an approach that didn't appeal to the young mail demographic, late teens into their 20s. You don't get Nintendo doing a GTA. Sony followed up on what Sega did, and capitalized on that market. End result was Nintendo got branded "kiddie", and they left.
2. The Gamecube controller is just plain weird. Sorry. It is nice to have a big honkin' fat green button in the middle, but across all games, it wasn't the best choice.
3. The Wii has its own niche it excels and, and should be left alone. To take a motion control game and say, BLAMMO it MUST be on the PS3 and 360 are missing the point. Like, we MUST bring Boomblox over to the PS3 and Wii? Why? It is made for the Wii.

You're transferring your changing game needs on Nintendo. Sure, it's your take and everyone can have his take. But it isn't much of a rational argument. Did you really expect them to follow you through every lifecylus? That's a strange expectation. No company does that. Nintendo renews much of its core every generation, like any entertainment business. Old customers leave, new come in. That happens with a lot of entertainment.

The thing is that I grew up in the target demographics that were what led to sales.  However, you can't say that every single thing there was mine.  I wasn't into Mortal Kombat at all.  I do know that Sega used Mortal Kombat to steal thunder from Nintendo.  This was the start of "Nintendo as 'kiddie'" (Keep in mind, I didn't believe Nintendo is, just that is the way it is).  Sony then exploited this further by allowing the likes of Grand Theft Auto.  Nintendo then got branded kiddie, and had losed the hardcore as a result.  It tried to keep doing what it was doing, and making money.  It did, but the growth demographic whines about it.  The complain Nintendo isn't "hardcore enough", and now they are gauled that Nintendo is on top.

In regards to this, I am far more Super Mario, than I am Grand Theft Auto and Mortal Kombat.

Every time Nintendo appealed to their hardcore, with stronger hardware and more violent games, they lost more than they gained. That's why they went for the blue ocean or mass-appeal strategy. What they did before failed them. They tried more hardcore and failed twice. Meanwhile the Playstation won, because it chose to attract casuals and hardcore. With the PS2, the casual percentage grew even more. Nintendo saw it, learned form it and made it her own. Bam, blue ocean adn the wii.

You can't really claim that the Playstation 1 or 2 was more hardcore over the N64 or the GC. The two playstations won only with the casuals, not the hardcore. GtA only sold some 17 million on a installbase of +-130 million. The casuals of then might be hardcore now and vice versa. That's something which will happen to the Wii users too. Off course hardcore is a word which is thrown around too much. But it can only be defined by an personal opinion, not a clear-cut definition.

The so called 'kiddie' branding is barely happening outside the internet, mostly hardened HD fanboys. What's more important anyway: what the mainstream audience thinks or a small minority on the internet? For a any company, it is the mainstream audience. Nintendo chose so and is printing money now with an  console unrivaled in sales.