RolStoppable said:
I don't see that as namecalling, but rather as a statement of truth. If you don't want to be called an idiot, then don't be an idiot. None of the sequels to non-fictional worlds IPs will come close to their predecessors' performance, because the hardware itself is an obstacle. Both the 3DS and Wii U weren't made for the audience that bought those games. Since those people don't want the hardware, the software isn't going to sell. They are merely token games by Nintendo, because Nintendo would of course love it if those people bought the hardware and then switched over to playing spiritual successors of Nintendo 64 and GameCube games. It's absolutely telling that Wii Sports 3 is still not officially announced, even though it was the Wii's single biggest IP. It simply isn't the kind of game that Nintendo wants to sell, hence why it has no priority whatsoever. Think about this for a moment: What are the things that make the Wii U a better Wii? |
Nobody wants a Wii period. 2006 was a long time ago in pop culture terms. The O.C. is not the biggest TV show for teens anymore, Paris Hilton is not the "hot" celebrity everyone just has to follow, even something like Twilight has become a bit passe. Baggy jeans gave way to skinny jeans. Atkins diet came and went. Facebook was some new thing your parents didn't know about yet. Trends have changed. I mean sh+t, eight years ago the most interesting thing you could do on your phone was play Snake on it and check your voicemail.
Nintendo *has* tried to replicate the success of their earlier blue ocean hits. Nintendogs + cats, Brain Training 3DS, Nintendo Land ... it ain't working dude. The 3DS is selling reasonably alright as a hardware, so by your logic then Brain Training should do fine, it's not that long ago that it was pushing 20 million units every time out. That's the reason why there isn't a Wii Sports 3 right now -- because Nintendo knows deep down that it wouldn't be the same hit it was seven years ago.
Nintendo Land was their attempt to put a different spin on that idea, and it failed as a system driver.
Casual gamers got a taste of $1 games that scratch their gaming itch, why should they go back to $50-$60 games? They're not that invested in gaming, it's just a fun little pass time that they maybe get around to doing a few times a week at best. Guess which business model is cannibalizing which market.







