By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 07 February 2012
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Seece said:

Pretty sure Nintendo are ahead of you on this one. They're clearly not afraid of taking risks (although I always stand by my belief that they had little choice but to go with the Wii) If they thought they could have another Wii hit on their hands they would have gone the same route, but they know, and I think most other people realise that it just wasn't going to happen a second time around, it's not radically different enough to capture the casuals immagination, it's just never going to get that IT status whoever they target it at. Nintendo are courting third parties because it's a lot safer and a lot more predictable.

I don't know why you're using PS3 losses as an excuse as to why the strategy doesn't work, different company, different mindset.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Nintendo are worried about their future, every year they're going to have to fight that bit harder than they did last gen to keep 3DS relevent, even if you take games out of the equation, people are still choosing iPhones and the likes over dedicated handhelds.

The safest bet argument doesn't fly, because then Nintendo would have launched the 3DS with Super Mario Bros. 3DS, a sequel to the #1 selling game on the DS. The DS game released in 2006 and never got a sequel, so there was more than enough time to get the game ready for the 3DS launch. Releasing a sequel to your biggest IP on the launch day of a new system is the safest bet to get off to a good start. The reality is that Nintendo didn't even have the logo to show for SMB 3DS when they announced it at their last briefing, so everything points to a reaction to poor 3DS sales and the game may have not been made at all, if the 3DS had sold well. Let this sink in for a while: Nintendo would deliberately forego making a sequel to their biggest IP, that's how messed up things have been inside the company in the last couple of years. Would Microsoft stop making Halo? Unthinkable.

I said the strategy is flawed and the PS3 is a good example of why it is. There's a chance that it does work, but if it doesn't, the company is screwed. Sony lost a lot of marketshare, mindshare and profits this generation.

I am pretty sure that Miyamoto is worried about his future, because he can't have his way. But Nintendo, as a company, has all the IPs and talent it takes to keep making dedicated gaming platforms, but their businessmen need to bitchslap their developers more often, because it's very much needed.

even if you take games out of the equation, people are still choosing iPhones and the likes over dedicated handhelds.

This sentence really doesn't make sense, because the only reason why people would choose iPhones and the likes over dedicated handhelds is if you take games out of the equation. A handheld without games is worthless, after all.

Nintendo pulled a Sony. They thought their brand could carry their system. It has nothing to do with courting devs and everything to do with Sony-level arrogance.

Just look at the wii and how well they've been supporting that. They're certainly not courting any third parties with the wii.
The problem IS that the businessmen have bitchslapped the developers. They had a sure thing and so released nothing of great import for the last 6 years.

As far as that quote, seece is saying even without the games smartphones offer, they're still choosing smartphones because smartphone are basically a more value-laden DS. DS was known for its peripheral software. Translation, scheduling, training. The DS was a do it all system for less than a quarter of the price of a blackberry. Now, smartphones do the same for the same price, and with free software, and no memory cards to switch in and out. At least that's what I think he's saying.