| Squilliam said: Forget about that analogy, I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote it. Anyway if you want proof of what smart phones are doing: "The sales figures tell the story. While smartphone sales in the United States continue to skyrocket, unit sales of point-and-shoot cameras fell nearly 16 percent from 2008, according to the market research firm NPD Group. That corresponds to a decline of 24 percent in dollars, to $1.9 billion, from $2.4 billion. Even when the recession eased over the last year, sales of point-and-shoots fell. At the same time, sales of more powerful cameras like S.L.R.’s, with advanced features like interchangeable lenses and manual settings, have increased, by nearly 29 percent in dollars since 2009, according to NPD." Now smart phones aren't even as good as point and shoot digital cameras. However they are good enough. Hence the reason why they are disrupting the typical digital camera market. The rest of the camera makers have retreated up market and into more specialist cameras which leaves the lower end of the market ripe to be overtaken by camera phones which aren't nearly as good. So if smartphones packing mediocre cameras can do that to the digital camera market then why, pray tell me, can they not do that to the game industry when they offer both unique value in terms of their game pricing and distribution whilst catering to the widest audience in terms of user numbers? Just as a smart phone will never replace a digital SLR, a smart phone will never replace a game system for a dedicated game player. However someone who isn't so dedicated and simply wants something to spend 1-15 minutes at a time on may no longer find it worthwhile to own a dedicated game handheld when a smart phone can do almost everything they want it to do. Theres no point in pointing to sales numbers without other evidence as proof that theres no effect on the industry, unless you have Earth 2 hidden somewhere so you can study the world of games without certain influences like smart phones you cannot say what the sales of certain devices or software would have been like under different conditions. If smart phones weren't having an effect on Nintendo then why do they appear to be retreating up-market? Why did they point to Apple as their biggest competitor/threat? Finally, they can't just 'hire' assistance in developing an online presence. Most of the present players in the market between Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Sony have spent years developing their networks over multiple devices, many of which are not game devices. The reason for doing so is simple, its a network effect and once you gain a subscriber you're more likely to gain his or her friends as well simply because the networks are mostly exclusive to one another. You can't just click your fingers and catch up, nor can you get into the business without a willingness to spend in the hundreds of millions to billions range. |
OK, analogy forgotten. However you've now brought up another: Your camera analogy. I don't doubt the info you posted, nor do I deny smartphones' many advantages, but cameras and games are two completely different things. Before smartphones, how many people lined up on launch day to buy the latest Kodak or Polaroid point and shoot camera? And yes, there will always be people who will just spend 1-15 minutes gaming on their phones, just as there will always be people who want to play full-fledged handheld games for a richer experience. As I said in my earlier post, room for both.
And no, I can't experience an alternate timeline where PCs and consoles don't coexist to see how well consoles would be doing; I don't have to. I never said they wouldn't be doing even better than they are now, but consoles are doing remarkably despite the presence of PC gaming. Same goes for Apple being Nintendo's competitor. Again, room for both.
And finally, they don't have to "click their fingers and catch up" if they were to partner with someone like Google or Amazon, who has already done the network development you mentioned. Did Nintendo click their fingers for the chips used in the GC/Wii? No, they partnered with ATI. And as far as the money needed that you mentioned, if it came to their perseverance, Nintendo definitely has it to spend.
