Onyxmeth said:
Xen said:
Onyxmeth said:
Sales are used as such an ugly term around here, but it permeates the majority of an IPs worth. I'd say critial response and anyone's personal opinion of an IP probably counts for no more than maybe a small percentage of what matters. Bottom line is, Nintendo IPs sell at a rate that no other publisher in videogame history can come even close to equaling. They have been able to sell such a wider range of genres with their original IPs. They can sell IPs in genres that other publishers have abandoned or aren't targetting, and can sell IPs in genres that many people believe to be largely dead or dying genres. I don't see any substantial evidence to support the combination of Microsoft and Sony's IPs beat Nintendo, let alone either one of them. Sony rides the wave of what's hot in genres for the most part, especially this generation, and they see some nice returns because of it, but Nintendo creates markets and then dominates them. I don't see any argument other than "I like Sony's games better" to suggest Sony makes better IPs, and I find that to be the weakest argument anyone can possibly make. From a market standpoint, which is where this article is coming from, there is Nintendo and then there is everybody else.
|
They have a hugeass dedicated fanbase that stuck to their consoles mostly thanks to their games (33 million N64's is no joke), a fanbase built since the NES. Aside from this gen, in which they simply carved out a whole market, that's the thing that mostly pulled them through (exception: Mario games). They built themselves on on it and have a far longer 1st party tradition than Sony, that built themselves on 3rd party, and started really investing in 1st party only this gen, really. BTW, what games DO they sell in largely dead or untargeted genres? Nothing comes up. To clarify, I'm not speaking about genres they pretty much created.
But I guess we have different opinions of what IP worth is based on. I couldn't care less about sales.
|
If I say untargeted areas, I'm obviously talking about the markets they've created. You can't ask me to clarify what I meant and then say you're not getting on the same page. In regards to dying genres, fighting games, japanese RPGs, racing games and platformers is what I was speaking of mainly. These are genres that have taken continuous hits every generation or in racing games and RPGs just this past generation, and are becomming less relevant, and yet Nintendo can still succeed in that area greatly.
What do you feel an IPs worth is based on? Your personal opinion on which games you prefer? That's narrow thinking. No company cares what you personally think. They care what the collective thinks, and the collective is derived from sales. An IPs worth should be whatever pushes a publisher to create IPs, and that is always going to be the same reason, to sell games. Nobody cares what one person out of millions thinks, whether that's you or me. Is it really that hard for you, and others that have shared the same thought process in this thread, to lose your personal bias for a moment and think about this discussion in an objective manner? We're commenting on a topic derived from a quote made by a market analyst. So why wouldn't we discuss IPs from the perspective of the market as a whole, and not simply whatever we feel like spending our cash on?
|
