By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 23 June 2009
Edit Thread

Smashchu2 said:
@S.T.A.G.E.: There were a lot of misconceptions in your posts. Allow me to correct some of the errors.

One of your biggest mistakes is thinking people upstream from Nitnendo to Sony/Microsoft. If this was true, then why isn't the PS3 doing better (as all these users would be upstreaming, even back from the Gamecube days). But if the consumers move towards the PS3/360, but start with Nintendo, shouldn't Nintendo always have the largest user base. I mean, most people should be average or near the bottom. Why wasn't the Gamecube beating out the PS2? None of it adds up (NOTE:For those that understand the Blue Ocean Strategy, this will make lots of sense).

People did upstream from Nintendo to Sony. The Playstation and Playstation 2 era was proof of that...and even in those gens Nintendo had the cheapest system. The Wii has thrown everything off course, because it attracted a totally different crowd. I am sure, that Nintendo got sick of waiting for more third parties and the Hardcore. Most people who played the HD consoles originally had a Nintendo or Sega Genesis (IE: The Golden Age of gaming). After the Golden Age, gamers poured into the Playstation, because that console took gaming to the next level, despite Sony being pricks and taking all the cool names away from Nintendo like Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, most potential Enix titles and Capcom titles. The Gamecube didn't beat out the PS2, because the Gamecube was low on games until the end of its lifespan, not to mention the fact that Sony had sucked up all of Nintendo's noteriety and marketshare. By the time Nintendo got some credible third party franchises on the GC, the war was over. This problem doesn't have anything to do with the PS3 issue. That is an issue of Sony's arrogance coupled with the price of the PS3. Now that Microsoft is here, sucking up what could've been Sony's HD market...Nintendo would've been in neck and neck with Sony.

 

You misunderstood your experience to happen in the hear and now. Here is how it goes: The market was shrinking when Nintendo and Sega were duking it out in a Red Ocean. So, the users were more and more core (or hardcore). The PS1 moved gaming into the cinematic era (which was the greatest period of contraction in gaming) where games were defined by the new technology (Fun fact: this is ending because the 360 and PS3 are overshooting consumers. Gaming is starting to get back to interface and user interaction). You moved to Sony becuase Sony made cinamatic games. The new thing. Nintendo didn;t use CDs, so they couldn't compete.

The market during the Nintendo and Sega era was small, but growing steadily. The arcade market in the U.S. shrunk into nothingness as the gaming industry expanded. It made western gamers lazy. Most of the hardcore gamers of today were kids during the Sega/ Nintendo era. The PS1 didn't move gaming into the cinematic era, because PC's had already done that. The PS1 and N64 were on par in the graphics area. The PS1 had the edge with sound, and sometimes certain N64 games had to use small sound bytes. I didn't move to Sony, because Sony adopted CD technology (which is what I think you meant); I favored Sony (while also having Nintendo systems), because they moneyhatted like a madman and sucked up all the good third party games and bought all the first party.

 

Wii users will upstream to harder Wii games, not to PS3 or 360 games. Think about it, does mom, grandma, or your sister want to rip someone's head off in God of War? Do they want to waste 100 hrs. of their time with Final Fantasy? Do you they want to, robotically, press buttons as they appear on the screen in Heavy Rain? Nope. None of it. There games will hate violence (one reason why the industry was so male dominated because there was too much violence). They don't spend much time on the Wii in one sitting, so I doubt they want to play a time sink game. And I doubt the Wii for it's deep story and cinamatics. None of it adds up.

The majority of Wii owners will not upstream. The majority of them don't care to upstream. Only a minority of actual Wii users are already gamers or potential gamers in the making. The Wii was not meant for upstreaming. Only those who grasp gaming will catch on. Unless Nintendo changes their ways, a good portion of the potential gamers (IE: Kids and transitioning casuals) will eventually get bored and move on.

 

OH, and let me tell you something. Platformers are hardcore. They are more hardcore then most of the movie games you've played on the HD twins. Yeah, Heavy Rain is easy mode. Same for GTA, Halo and MGS. It was all about precision, timing, and speed. I mean, Megaman is hardcore to the max and more hardcore then most games today. And don't get me started on the arcade games.

Super Mario Galaxy is a mascot platformer. It is not hardcore. GTA is more hardcore than Mario....but Zelda is another story. Zelda and Metroid are the most hardcore mascot games for Nintendo. Zelda and Metroid take skill. You've got the conduit, no more heroes and Madworld and a couple others which are mature, which are new IP's, but as I said, so few.

Also, Wii gamers do want to progress their skills. They just want to do it in Wii Sports and Mario Kart.

Wii gamers may want to progress their skills by owning all systems, but most Wii owners...do not care to. With the bulk of Nintendo's games being focused on everyone, where does that leave the hardcore? The Wii will eventually hit a plateau effect with most of the hardcore. I don't care that Nintendo has focused on the casual as long as they are making money. As I've said before, Nintendo is the gate keeper and innovator of the gaming industry. They bring more potential gamers into the gaming ring than any platformer. They did it with me when I was four years old and they can do it with others. The Wii has proven this.