| mizzou_guy said: Eh, I'm leaning towards him being right. None of my friends nor myself are the least bit excited about the Wii U, and we all bought a Wii when that was released. I'm thinking that while the Wii was an initial success for Nintendo, most of the public was eventually put off by the lack of things to do with the system once the novelty wore off and probably won't spend their money on a Wii U. I also don't think the crowd who consider themselves "core gamers" will either, since Nintendo's tech is going to be greatly lagging behind the next Sony/MS consoles. |
But the core business a different discussion. The article clearly said:
"After all, it was Nintendo who helped expand gaming last time around with the original Wii. The Mario maker convinced senior citizens to game, among others who don't normally do so. Wii U won't do that."
That was the main point of his gripe.
The core audience, Nintendo didn't have gen 7, so how could that devalue the company in contrast with last gen?
I'll help, it wouldn't. However, what obtaining the core does, on the flipside, and I'll add this bit to be proactive in the discussion, even though it's an entirely different issue, is that it acts as:
1) A backup in case things don't work with the casuals (which the author already presumes, presumptuously)
2) It allows Nintendo to enter a realm of business where it can deal more with publishers and developers that do cater to the core market, and in so doing this will help Nintendo evolve as a games developer, and help them create games of their own flavor for the core audience (something many of us Nintendo fans and even non-Nintendo fans are eagerly looking forward to).
Nintendo can cater to the core, as history dictates, but the E3 presentation did not convey that. The article of this piece fails to see the difference between a strategy and its presentation, and that's a pretty fundamental point, which leads to the following assessment:
he fails.
