Wii 'could be in trouble' post-Christmas - Iwata

[axt113]

LordTheNightKnight said:

theRepublic said:

axt113 said:

The games that are wastes, don;t create incentive to buy, they don;t add value, diversity just for diversity sake is useless, diversity should come as a result of some gain, if you make a game, it should move hardware and bring in new buyers, if it doesn't then its just a waste

So in other words, you have no argument.  You are just repeating yourself.  You can't make similar games expecting expecting them all to be system sellers.  That doesn't add value for prospective customers.

Yeah, that is a bad conclusion axt made. You need variety. Even another Mario game would need to set itself apart. Lost Levels was not a system seller in Japan, but Mario 3 was. Mario 2 in the US was another system seller, despite being based off another platform game.

The GTA games also shows how this works. GTA III was a killer app. Vice City had a new setting, and was a killer app. San Andreas, same thing. Liberty City Stories was back to the same setting as III, and while it sold well, it was not the system seller the PSP needed, same with Vice City Stories. IV had a revamped Liberty City, but still didn't make the game a system seller in the vein of the PS2 trilogy.

So Nintendo should focus on system sellers more, while leaving the non sellers to non crucial release dates, but still have variety.

How is it a bad conclusion, differences in 2D mario games are not diversity just for diversity sakes, they actually add value to the games, which is why Mario 3 sold a lot, in fact you just proved my point about how mutliple similar games can exist on the same system and actually create value without needing a valueless 3D game, on the other hand, 3D Mario is just diversity for diversity sake it adds no value as evidence by the sales.  What I find especially funny is you disputed my argument, then ended up supporting it with your post, you just showed how similar games can exist and add value upon each other,  destroying the need for diversity that doesn't add value, and yet you said my conclustion was wrong, how is it wrong if you supported it?

You guys are just saying i'm wrong, but not giving any good reason why, saying I'm wrong or coming to bad conclusions does not an argument make,  actually try showing me why I'm wrong, show me why 3D mario and others like it actually add value and are needed, since as you just proved, they aren't needed, show me why creating diversity for diversity sake is needed and why creating actual value is a wrong conclusion