Nintendo Wii U not a threat that requires PS4, says Tretton

[o_O.Q]

HappySqurriel said:

o_O.Q said:

i didn't know the 3ds could pinpoint the locations of fiends on maps which is what "near" is...

furthermore why don't you talk about nintendo copying ar gaming from sony for the 3ds or the fact that the concept for the wiimote wasn't started by the nintendo but by datasoft who made the first motion wand ( the le stick )for consoles like the atari 2600 and comodore  years ago...

lol its funny when nintendo fanboys say other companies copy but don't even understand that nintendo gains a lot of undue credit for things other companies implemented first

Implementing something first is only meaningful if saw some level of success and people knew about it ...

A large portion of products we're now seeing being released to some success were initially dreamed up in the 1960s and 1970s, implemented in a primitive fashion dozens of times to very limited success, conventional wisdom develops about what "people want", and eventually one company breaks the rules and implements this concept again (most likely without knowing its origins) and is amazingly successful.

For example, while Apple introduced the iPad in 2010 and Steve Jobs was proclaimed as a "Visionary", Bill Gates introduced the Slate PC in 2002 (essentially the same product) to limited success, and the concept has its origins in a paper written by Alan Kay at Xerox in 1968 which described the Dynabook.

The reason Steve Jobs at Apple gets credit is based on the difference between innovation and invention. From Wikipedia:

An improvement on an existing form or embodiment, composition or processes might be an invention, an innovation, both or neither if it is not substantial enough. According to certain business literature, an idea, a change or an improvement is only an innovation when it is put to use, is accepted by users and effectively causes a social or commercial reorganization

The reason Nintendo gets credit for introducing something is because they were the company that brings forward an improvement that is "is accepted by users and effectively causes a social or commercial reorganization"

from what i understand form his post hes reffering to the orignator of the idea not the company that brought it to mainstream appeal and im just making the point that if thats the case then hes woefully ignorant of how the tech used in gaming today was introduced to gaming in the first place...

the big 3 that we speak of in gaming today have brought their own unique ideas, but for the most part they have built upon technological foundation made by companies like atari and sega... one example is how people believe nintendo brought analog sticks to gaming which is nonsense, for example atari had that on their consoles back in the 80s... it just annoys me when i see people giving credit where its undue and disregarding the companies who really deserve that credit