Immortal said:
oniyide said:
what makes you think the other 2 will do so intentionally? Anyone can do unintentional harm to the industry, it will still be harm. PS was going to be an add-on. Sega already did that with the Sega CD, a while ago. How come Sega did not seem to have any issues?? or Atari or whoever made 3DO? Why did they stick with catridges all the way up to GC?? Nintendo, the video game producer couldnt get the CDs right?? Im not buying it. Still doesnt explain why they use minidisc for GC that put them at a disadvantage against PS Xbox
Online. I could see how that could be possible, but again this is NInty, I expected them to try harder, they could have had a better online and still do their motion or whatever, not say "screw it". Plus they could have updated through the years just like MS and Sony did. And their flippant attitude toward online doesnt help their case.
Its because of competition that the Wii was even made. YOu think Ninty would have even tried anything like Wii if they were not getting their asses kicked. They could not defeat MS and Sony in the hardware race so they decided to go a completly different route, OR maybe they would have made it anyway (like Sony made that eyetoy), im leaning more toward the former, but since we dont have access to an alternate universe, we could just assume
|
I believe I mentioned this in my original post. It's called adding Bluray to the PS3. A $600, heavily lossmaking, hell-to-develop-for console is pretty much a murder attempt at the industry.
And, for your second statement, you should realize that there's only so much we can prevent. Companies will do what they want. It may or may not harm the industry. You don't know until you try. The thing is, with MS and Sony, we know there are some times that they will intentionally try to kill the industry because it's still good for them. On top of that, they'll still make the normal mistakes that Nintendo makes. Meaning that, in all likelihood, a higher proprtion of decisions that harm the industry occurs with them in important video game-related positions.
As far as your accusation against Nintendo goes, you've got to be joking. Nintendo's research on the Playstation goes back as far as 1986 according to Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, Nintendo has a history of waiting to get things right for their successful consoles (GBC came way after colour was common, for example) with the VB as the only real exception. They were going to do it with the SNES-CD. It didn't work. Playstation happened and destroyed their monopoly. They tried it with Philips. CDi happened, making Nintendo franchises a joke. They tried twice, even with horrible reprecussions the first time. Even with the limitless CD-based failures preceding it (I thank you for mentioning Sega CD and 3DO here). They were trying too hard, almost.
And your hate for mini-DVDs is completely unjustified. They weren't particularly inferior to normal ones, not enough to make GC less powerful than the PS2, at least. They were just avoiding unnecessary DVD licensing issues, or something to that effect, which is not shocking considering the whole drama with PS eating them alive. These were in fact better in some ways. Harder to pirate, apparently.
As for Wii's online, nobody was ever going to buy Wii for its online. Ever. It was doomed to be technically worse from the start. Anything else would have driven Nintendo bankrupt. Think from Nintendo's perspective here. Why the hell should I bother to work on online at all? If I don't, people say, "Wii has worse online than others". If I do, people say, "Wii has worse online than others". The reason they haven't bothered afterwards is because it won't help. Those who want the best online experience will necessarily go to the competition because Nintendo can't possibly better them at this point.
Now, while the last part is true, you should realize that the Wii was a random, unexpected move. The bad publicity it got before/near launch is evidence of that. Nintendo did it, but it was clearly an abnormal result of competition. An exception to the rule, almost. Plus, in this alternate, Nintendo-dominating universe, think of what the Wii would be like. I mean, as RolStoppable said, the GBA is a fantastic example to go by. A console with good specs, Wii-plus online, better control, all of Wii's non-motion-oriented fun games and likely a "Wii add-on" somewhere down the line, starting with some ~$299 as its launch price. By the end of its life, it would pretty much be better than the Wii. That doesn't look bad to me at all.
By the way, any of the non-opinion information I posted comes from Wikipedia. If I'm factually wrong, I am not to blame, :P.
|
