By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MrT-Tar on 03 February 2011
Edit Thread
evolution_1ne said:
MrT-Tar said:
evolution_1ne said:
MrT-Tar said:
evolution_1ne said:

it would be in a better place than where it is now


can I ask how?

IMO greater competition and diversity in the video game industry is a good thing

wii hasn't been competing with the ps3 or 360 until mid 2010.

and diversity is good, always good, but that depends on what type of diversity, and the "diversity" (which in my opinion isn't diversity at all but I won't go into that because I'll probably get banned again) the wii brings is definitely the wrong type of diversity.

In my opinion the industry would be A LOT better off with Nintendo being a 3rd party publisher, instead of a hardware manufacturer.

*note my feeling towards the wii are exclusive to the wii and NOT Nintendo*


how the hell has the Wii not been competing with the PS3 or 360 until that recently?

While many bought the Wii for games like Wii Fit, and as a result wouldn't likely buy another platform, I would still say the Wii and 360/PS3 have a postive cross elasticity of demand.  The fact that one of the biggest 3rd party exclusives, Monster Hunter 3, jumped from PS3 to the Wii clearly shows how they are competing.

If Nintendo were 3rd party, prices for platforms would be a lot higher.  While I can't prove anything, I suspect that the Wii's considerably lower price tag encourages MS and Sony to reduce the prices of their consoles.  Hell, Nintendo even raised the price of the Wii in 2009, shrinking the gap slightly.

3rd parties would have a lot less money if Nintendo were 3rd party.  Companies such as Ubisoft get a serious net benefit from releasing on the Wii, just think of all the money being received from Just Dance/2.  Even worse affecting would be your (judging by your avatar) beloved Square-Enix, who get massive sums of revenue from the DS.  If the likes of DQIX, Blood of Bahamut, FFIII and IV DS, DQ IV - VI DS were all split between the remaining platforms, the higher development costs would mean some games would have to be dropped, it is those games which finances the development of the next FF game.

I cannot conceive how anyone bar their console manufacturing competitors would argue that the industry would be 'A LOT better' with Nintendo being 3rd party 

yes

i. meh that's one game, which is very popular in japan which I heard, and I think it juked due to development cost.

ii. really, so a lower price is now a higher one??

iii. and that last part was just me being a fanboy of hardcore games lol, my hopes and dreams, not the industries.


i.  And what about games like Sengoku Basara, Samurai Warriors, Tales of Graces, Rune Factory Oceans, etc that are multiplatform on both Wii and PS3?  The different versions of the games would almost certainly have a positive cross elasticity of demand, as most people would only buy one version, which signals that  PS3 and Wii are competing.

I know this is anecdotal, but if the Wii never existed, I can categorically tell you that I would have bought a PS3 on it's March 2007 launch, instead of getting one in late 2008 to play LBP.  Equally, if the Wii never existed, I would have certainly bought a lot more PS3 games.

ii. The point I was trying to make was that the considerably difference in price between the Wii and 360/PS3 encouraged, through competition and the aim of profit maximisation, that gap to be closed (predominately by MS/Sony price cuts, but Nintendo did raise the price of the Wii in 2009, probably due to a combination of the above reason, the Wii being quite price inelastic and the weak £).

iii.  Surely 'hardcore' is a definition of the way one plays a game, rather than a definition of the game itself?  For example, my Mum between 2000 and 2009 (when I bought her Tetris DS) played between half and three quarters of an hour of Tetris (what many call a 'casual' game) on my GBC a day, pretty much without fail.  Meanwhile, in that time I've only played about 30 hours of it and I only played it irregularly.  My Mum is the 'hardcore' Tetris player, not myself.  Despite this, I am what one may call a 'hardcore' gamer, I can recite all 493 pokemon in numerical order, I can hum the battle theme from all mainline FF games, my  mother can do neither, however she is more 'hardcore' when it comes to Tetris.  Equally, in the event my Mum ever got into JRPGs or platformers, she will likely be more 'casual' than myself for those.

Again, this is anecdotal, but around my 6th form and social groups, a disproportionately high amount of gamers consider the Wii more 'hardcore' than the 360 and PS3.  They instead claim that the people who predominately play the likes of FIFA or FPS and know little of gaming history or culture are the 'casual' ones, many of them go even further and consider them the 'base' of video gaming culture.  While I realise that the views of generally upper-middle class students from the South East of England will not likely be representative of the entire U.K or even world gaming population, but that does say something.