axt113 said:
archbrix said:
axt113 said:
archbrix said:
Wii vitality could very well be a casual lure like Wii Fit was, and no, that audience will not be swayed by Zelda Wii, Galaxy 2 or Metroid. But to say that three of Nintendo's most popular franchises are not a strong lineup is ridiculous. The original Galaxy had very strong sales and Zelda Wii will do the same. There are still core gamers who do not own a Wii yet who are just waiting for Zelda Wii to appear.
Once again: N64 sold poorly because of lacking third party support and the lack of CD, period. Nintendo and Rare kept the system alive on their own, making it reach the 30 million+ systems it did sell. The casual bandwagon hadn't been established yet so how can you say their games didn't appeal to a wide audience for that time (ever heard of GoldenEye?)? By that definition Playstation didn't have "casual market" games either and it sold phenomenally. I guarantee that if the N64 had launched with NSMB or Mario World they wouldn't have sold nearly as many copies as Mario 64 at that time. People were expecting 3D after polygons became the standard; why do you think Mario, a very 2D based game from its gameplay inception, went 3D? The Wii has sold incredibly because of creating a new market: the casual gamer, along with being very affordable for said market. I never disputed this. What I said was Nintendo underestimated the competition before on many levels, NOT with the Wii where they went a different route than the competition... so my argument=win.
I agree with what Chistensen says as his basis is sound. But software could make all of the difference. I don't think it will in this case, but do you think the Wii or the DS for that matter would have been successes if another company was at the helm of that technology? Nintendo's genius ideas for applications with the new tech is what made them appealing, and there is always a chance (a very slim one in this case) that Sony and Microsoft could create apps that make their respective peripherals appealing. Again, we don't know enough details regarding software. Christensen never once says, "Move will fail", only that it's not poised for large success. There is a difference; while it won't have the break-out success the Wii-mote did, it could still suffice for Sony, who is seeking the casual audience, rather than hit rock bottom. This market is just too unpredictable for you to assume Move and Natal are instant failures. How about the 90% of analysts who, with sound statistical reasoning, stated that Nintendo would be lucky with about 15% market share before this generation started? I rest my case.
|
None of them pushed hardware, what pushed hardware was the wider market games, like Wii sports
Wrong, do you even hear yourself, the causual bandwagon, lol, you really don't get it, there is no causal bandwagon, only idiots think there is, the wider market has always been there, they just weren't interested in playing "core" games, things like Mario 64, they were interested in Super mario, but not 3D star hunter mario. Their games didn't appeal to a wide audience, because none of them came close to the Super mario games of the earlier gens, they had cut off the wider market. Wrong Super Mario has always sold more than 3D mario, get a clue. You really don't understand the market at all do you?
Sony and MS have no chance of making that software, the values of those companies are opposed to what the wider market is looking for, which is why they could never make the, Wii. Back then MOVE wasn't announced, all there was was rumors of what would become MOVE, but he did say that the rumored ideas were a bad idea and that alternatives were what Sony should do, now Sony is doing the wrong move, and it'll end like other disrutions, with Sony being crushed, in fact Christensen has outlined how Sony will be defeated in his books.
Those analysts are not Christensen, Christensen is smarter, he's the guy who created the whole disruption theory, and its the theory that Nintendo has followed to great success, and the success is continuing, so yeah, trust the guys who were wrong and are currently saying Move will be a success, or the guy who was right and who said MOVE was a bad idea, I'll trust Christensen.
|
Wii Sports and the like did push hardware; it STILL doesn't mean their big three lineup isn't strong.
If the word "casual" offends you, too bad. Let's use "wider" since you seem to prefer it. Many, many people who bought the Wii are people who fall into the "wider" category. People that , as you admitted yourself, are not core gamers. People who bought it on a whim, many of which hardly use it anymore. People who are grandparents who like Wii bowling. People who play every long once and a while with their kids. In other words: PEOPLE WHO PLAY CASUALLY! Sound better? Less idiotic, perhaps? I never said this was a bad thing; not in the least. No they would not be interested in Mario 64. But Mario 64 did more than deliver a "3D star hunt". It delivered a new era of gameplay and showed that Nintendo could gracefully transition great gameplay into 3D. That impressed people whether they were fans of the direction the game took or not. I personally prefer most of the 2D Mario games myself, and now that the "wider" market has embraced the Wii, great games like NSMB will surely sell much better. But in 1996 Nintendo started the N64 off with a bang by adapting to the market instead of just releasing another 2D Mario which would have largely gone unnoticed at the time. Super Mario World came with the SNES, but Super Mario World 2? Despite being one of my favorite games ever, it definitely didn't sell anywhere near what Mario 64 and Galaxy have... there's your clue.
Sony opposed to what the wider market is looking for? Because PS1 and PS2 didn't sell squat, right? Do YOU hear yourself? I won't argue against Christensen's points simply because I do agree with a lot of what the man says. Doesn't mean Move and Natal couldn't surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath either. And I never stated I "trusted" the analysts; I NEVER did, as I was sure Nintendo would regain their #1 spot in the market. Why? Because I DO understand the market. Do You?
|
Wrong, still weak, doesn't move hardware is weak
Its not offesnsive, its stupid, because it shows you really don't ge the market. Not core means they value different things than the core, they don't care about HD graphics for example. No 3D mario, mario 64, merely closed off the market, alienating those gamers who were fans of the Super marios, I know I never enjoyed the 3D marios like the Super marios.
Going unnoticed, lol, are you listening to yourself, Mario 64 never sold close to what those 2D marios you think would have gone unnoticed did, like I said, you don't get marketing, study business a little first.
Sony just sold to more markets, and to larger populations, they didn't expand the market, and they still won't with move or NATAL
|
