JWeinCom said:
Cobretti2 said:
That's not answering my question, or really even close. If they had built a machine with the same specs as their rivals and the same third party games, how does that help them expand into Sony and Microsoft's market? If Sony and Microsoft gamers can already get those games from what they already have, why would they suddenly decide to go with Nintendo?
|
simple, there people who left because they didn't get 3rd party support. but still love Nintendo gams. So they either ended up giving up on Nintendo games or they ended up getting a second console. If Nintendo could cater to the core they could potnetially win the guys back who gave up on Nintendo games because their was a lot more 3rd party offerings.
What I think Nintendo should focus on is retaing its younger audience that become teens. If they had the core titles the kids now turning into teens woould not need to switch sides. This is why you need core games.
In the end if Nintendo can cater to it's crowd then in theory we would see an even split of users on each console base, the difference being the exlcusives each offers to attract people
|
Except that many of those teens are going to switch sides at any rate due to Nintendo's first party software. Sony and Microsoft will have more "mature" games, because that's what they make. Nintendo does not make games like Halo, Uncharted, Gears of War, Infamous, etc, and making those games to attract "hardcore" gamers (including those teens who want to play call of duty cause you can shoot stuff) would necessitate detracting from the games Nintendo does do well.
If Nitnendo wanted to boost its spect to the levels third parties would want, their options are eating a huge loss in money, raising the price of the console, or losing the tablet. Raising the price wouldn't work well. Its $300 price point (it was 300 before price cut as well in basic form) with a game is going to be a big factor in attracting less avid gamers who naturally don't play games as much.
As for eating the loss, that would also be a poor idea. The Wii U is already being sold at around cost (the price drop changes things, but on the flip side, the Yen is much weaker), and beefing up specs would probably mean 50-100 extra dollars per unit. 6GB of RAM alone is not going to come cheap. Considering that the average console owner buys around 9 games (not all at full price and including pack ins) making back that money is going to be hard to do. In the end, the console game is not just about getting hardware out there but making money. That's not even mentioning the costs of online infrastructure if they were to change from a console focusing on local multiplayer to one focussed on online multiplayer.
So then, Nintendo can ditch the tablet, which I expect is what many people think they should do. However, I think the tablet is an important factor to the Wii U, and I believe it will be key to the Wii U's success. There is a lot of potential use here, both big and small, and with Wii Fit and Wii Party, we're going to see how the Gamepad will streamline social networking, and differentiate the Wii U's multiplayer experience. Nintendo can of course prove me wrong by not releasing more titles that take advantage of the Gamepad, but the thing has a lot of potential.
Of course, the ideal situation is to make a console that does have the specs of the PS4 and XBox One, and the Gamepad, but from a dollar and cents perspective it doesn't make sense. It is FAR more important for Nintendo to differentiate itself from its competitors than to secure third party support.
|
