reading it I would say this, economics teaches us that there is a limit to the factors of production, and the more you produce of one thing, the less you can produce of another, making 3D assets in a 2D game is a smart way to reduce the amount of factors that need to go into a game, making it easier to make more, but you are still constricted by limits on overall factors.
Perhaps there are people who buy 3D and not 2D, but they are a smaller market, and Nintendo has shown that they would rather pursue larger markets than fight over dwindling small markets.
Nintendo already has trouble producing enough games in a year for their systems, indicating they are already bumping up against the limits of production, so every 3D game is fewer 2D games with higher profit margins.
3D games are produced in far larger quantities on consoles, so the opposite is true, the 3D games would have greater diminishing returns than 2D, and as for series, Nintendo is sitting on many properties that have not seen the light of day in years if not decades.
It comes down to this, since Nintendo has a limit on how much it can produce in a year, and the 3D market is already saturated, and less profitable than the 2D market, then what are the advantages of making 3D games?
If it was possible to make hundreds of games a year, then yes, 3D would be fine, but until Nintendo can make that many, why spend valuable finite resources in a market that is already well served and with lower returns
Its akin to the graphics race, why did Nintendo not bother fighting over the core market with high powered graphics and core games, for the reason that the market wasn't worth chasing, not when more attractive uses of their resources were available
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
