Analyst firm says Sony is responsible for Nintendo's lack of third party content

[Zod95]

Shadow1980 said:

First off, you never explained why you feel Nintendo is uniquely "arrogant."

Excuse me? The very text you've quoted tells you that. Look: "Thus, any company that challenges this basic law of the market offering the same tech/price ratio as the last generation is being arrogant...Nintendo is the perfect case about this.". What additional explanations do you need?

 

Shadow1980 said:

Second, the Wii had more than two games supporting it in its first 8 months. Between launch and July 2007, it had not just Wii Sports and Wii Play but also Twilight Princess, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves, Sonic & The Secret Rings, Super Paper Mario, Mario Party 8, and Resident 4: Wii Edition. The Wii U didn't have nearly as much in its early months. It had NSMBU and Nintendo Land at launch and Pikmin 3 in August, and the between then the only things of note it had were an original LEGO game (as opposed to one based on a preexisting IP) and an expansion pack to NSMBU. The Wii U had the single worst dry spell of any console in recent memory, with precious little in its early months that couldn't also be bought for another system, and it was poorly marketed (they had commercials, but I never saw any). I don't believe in the common refrain that the primary reason for the Wii's success was that Nintendo somehow managed to draw in a bunch of non-gamers and "casuals" who never bought a console before and have now drifted back away from consoles. I've been meaning to make a thread focusing on that very subject.

Wii Sports and Wii Play were the system sellers, the others were bonus. WiiU has also got 2 system sellers and some bonus games. Are you arguing about the size of the bonus? That doesn't make much difference. Wii would have sold almost the same even only with those 2 flagship games at the beginning.

And what does have PS4 that can't be brought for another system? Killzone and Knack? That's even less and see how the console is selling. Games are undoubtly very important but what makes a console to sell at the begining is the concept vs price. Wii had an appealing concept and price at that time, WiiU hasn't. That's the point. Otherwise, what is the WiiU's excuse to sell poorly now that it has many titles already?

As for the marketing, I see some WiiU commercials in my country and there were no Wii commercials back then in 2006/2007. I guess you are "unlucky".

Regarding the Wii's audience, I'm sure it was mainly console gaming newcomers. Then, some have evolved into richer eco-systems (PlayStation and Xbox) while others just went out of the market by the same door they came, although I don't know which case is more significant. But I'm curious about your thread, let me know once you create it.

 

Shadow1980 said:

You said, and I quote, "It's just your opinion twisting according to your personal wishes." How is that not a deliberately antagonistic attack on my character?

That was not meant to be a personal attack at all, I'm sorry if you took it like one. It's normal that, when we don't use solid criteria / boundaries / logic, we let our wishes to take control over our subjective assessment. That happens with you as it happens with everybody. I was not criticizing that, since we can't do much about it. The only way to fight subjectiveness is by avoiding it (using objectiveness). And when you use multiple criteria you're not doing so. That's what I was criticizing. Again, I was not criticizing you but your option.

 

Shadow1980 said:

Also, it's just not Wikipedia. There are numerous other sources that classify the Wii as seventh-gen based on the fact that it launched alongside the 360 and PS3, including the VG Sales Wiki, numerous gaming blogs and news sites, and even this very site.

Does a logic makes more/less sense depeding on the number of supporters? That's funny.

 

Shadow1980 said:

If we based everything soley on specs, we'd have to have a committee to determine whether the NES and SMS are second-gen or third-gen or whether the TurboGrafx-16 is third-gen or fourth-gen, among other examples of potentially ambiguous categorization based solely on system power. It's not as concrete as you suggest, and the boundaries can be quite fluid.

Do we have a committee to determine the weight of each parameter of the multiple criteria used by Wikipedia? So why would that be necessary for the tech?

I know tech evolution is fluid, you just need to determine boundaries from which it is considered one generation and not the other. Release date is another fluid criteria. If that was the only one, would you need a committee to determine the week from which a generation would end while another would start? I don't think so.

The problem is not where to put the boundaries (that is the easy part), the problem is if you can actually do so. With multiple criteria (withouth determined weights for each parameter) it becomes next to impossible because here you have real ambiguity (caused by contradicting criteria).

 

Shadow1980 said:

Sure, you're free to call it whatever you want, but don't expect anybody except some of the more vehemently anti-Nintendo partisans to even consider giving your classification any merit. Using multiple criteria might be as simplistic as you like, but the vast majority at least implicity agree that it's a system that works well.

The vast majority uses what has been used so far. They use it because it was used, and it will continue to be used because they're using it. It's a cycle. And it probably began to be the most informative criteria since console makers back then attempted to do the best they could, so the launch date was more aligned to the tech level and eveything was coherent. Not anymore. Now we have Nintendo and Zeebo challenging that logic.

I don't bother to get out of the cycle and use what is most informative now. When a gamer says he/she is thinking about buying a 7th gen console or that he/she would like to try 7th gen features, I assure you he/she is not thinking about console release dates. To call the Wii 7th gen is to misinform that gamer.

And recently we had a user here on the site creating a thread about the 8th gen where he only mentioned PS4 and XOne. People complained so much that he changed the title to something like "consoles with more than 1TFPS". Does this seems reasonable to you? What are the generations meant to be if they're not to be useful? Why does have a guy to mention the number of flops just to be clear about the context of what he wants to say (which is very simple and basic)?