happydolphin said:
This is exactly what the editorial piece was not saying. I was not saying dump the Blue ocean. I was saying don't dump the red ocean. |
I get that, but that's far easier said than done. Making a console that would compete head on with M$ and Sony in terms of horsepower would have been a HUGE financial risk. Nintendo could have probably survived even if the Wii had Gamecube levels of success. If Nintendo made an expensive system that lost them 100+ $ per console, and that didn't sell, they would be in a dire financial situation.
And frankly, Nintendo wasn't as good as appealing to the market that Microsoft did. There are hardcore Nintendo fans, and hardcore Nintendo games. Skyward Sword is a hardcore game, Mario Galaxy is a hardcore game, Donkey Kong Country Returns is a hardcore game, and Pikmin is a hardcore game. However, the Nintendo hardcore and Microsoft hardcore are two different beasts altogether. Nintendo doesn't really make games that appeals to that fratcore crowd, and without those kinds of exclusives they wouldn't have done pretty well. Plus, if they tried to develop those kinds of games, that means less time and resources to develop Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, etc.
In the end Microsoft went from 25m to 69m with the benefit of Sony shooting themselves in the foot. Meanwhile, Nintendo went from 20 to 95 million and despite what the article's author may say, was the undisputed winner of this generation. I think their strategy was a sound one. I don't think they could have done all of that while still competing directly with the X-Box and PS3.
