By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 01 December 2012
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:

It's the wrong answer to you, but it's the correct answer to me. It's compounded by the fact that Halo was a lauch game, so no need to build any market, the game was properly marketed so as to yield that result.

Nintendo is well capable of advertising the hell out of a launch game catering to that market, as well as marketing the hell out of something like the Wii when it first came out. So that point is moot.

Now assuming they did the obvious and properly target that audience, the problem of reluctance people have from choosing their game would be thwarted by proper marketing. It's all in the image, and Nintendo figured that out for Wii, why haven't they figured it out for the older-teen market? Answer: They have a corporate and mass mental blockage on that front. They need consultants to help them understand that market and how to cater to it. THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO! And it's no coincidence that the big winners are western companies.

As for underlined, tell my how what they had was not profitable. As far as I'm concerned, the poor profit yield overall was not due to their SW strategy, but due to their hardware strategy. The onus is on you to provide the numbers for your shady claim, nevermind Sony I know what happened there it's the PS3's pricetag. How in the world was the xbox not profitable? Also, I have no reason to think that the xbox was not profitable to Microsoft. They went after the Wii audience because there was money there, just like Nintendo should try to SUCCEED at aiming their market because there is money there too.

Earlier in this thread, somebody mentioned Twilight Princess which sold more than 7m copies. You basically dismissed it.

Your memory has a funny way of re-writing itself. I didn't dismiss it, I acknowledged it, and attributed alot of its success to the fact that it rode the wave of the Wii launch craze. I'll add to that the name "Twilight" was coincidentally part of a craze at the same time, as well.

In case you haven't paid any attention (and apparently you haven't), it's mostly Western companies who got into serious financial trouble in the seventh generation. They sell more games than ever before, but somehow they manage to make not much profit off of it. Some of them even went bankrupt or are close to it. Meanwhile, Japanese companies (who largely fail to put out blockbusters like Western companies) are in a better financial state.

Apparently I haven't... I have no idea what makes you say that. You do realize I lead the VGStockz thread, and one of the main topics lately is THQ's demise. To say that it works for all companies clearly wasn't my point as I'm aware of that, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the western companies that ARE selling big are thriving. (Ubisoft, EA, Activision-Blizzard). Nintendo is a big-boy, it's not Midway, it's not Acclaim, it's not THQ. They have more money, and could leverage talent, as well as market effectively. The point of OP is to show that they don't know HOW to do it, and the cube proved that.

The Xbox 360 is hovering around the break even point after seven years on the market. The PS3 is still deep in the red after six years on the market. Their software and hardware strategy went hand in hand. They wanted to appeal to the older teen crowd above everything else, so they made very powerful consoles. Neither company could afford to make more moderate hardware, because it would have resulted in dismissal by the older teen crowd. There's no money to gain here for Nintendo. In order to compete they would need to be willing to lose billions upfront in hopes to eventually make it back; and like Microsoft's and Sony's financials have shown, even success in appealing to the older teen crowd doesn't yield any notable profits or even profits at all.

@bold. That didn't happen for the PS2. We know there's a threshold that was reasonable, within which that doesn't happen.

Also, the PS3 had the brand power in its advantage, they didn't HAVE to go with the cell in any way.

And as far as I know, the PS3 is no longer deep in the red, you're going to have to support your claims with numbers and links at this point because this is getting silly.

If Sony did it wrong with the PS3, does that mean that the older-teen market in and of itself is not viable? Nah, I don't buy that kind of thinking. Cell was not needed, that blows the argument out of the water. A reasonable piece of next gen HW would have done the trick.

All this to say that the market is viable, as the PS2 showed, and that Nintendo sucks at targetting it, that's the point. The day Nintendo will make a blockbuster for that segment and market it like AC, and the game fails, is the day I will shut my mouth.