1. So Nintendo, taking all the profits is hurting the industry because?........I honestly don't know what the reason is for this claim other than that they're the more private company in terms of inhouse software/hardware dev, publisher, etc. So even though they're cashing in tons of $ (which goes to their own inhouse teams and overall employees to coninue their operations) is hurting everyone? I disagree. I'm pretty sure you already realise this but they need to generate profits to keep going.
2. Being that this claim is rather long, I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Most of what I read here is pure folly. You're insinuating that the need to grow up is is about "getting with the times." Total hogwash. If if that were true, then the comic book industry would've been in much better shape (but thats a whole different thread to talk about). The cold hard truth is whether you like it or not, there needs to be a "refresh" in the gaming demographic. New blood basically. Say what you want say about Nintendo's latest amibtions toward new game developement, but what they're doing is benificial to the industry. They're the only ones who are still successfully marketing games to the child demographic with their "cartoonish" way. They choose the simple, "basic" path to making games. Make something too complex, then you start alienating a group of consumers who just want to pick-up and play. Nintendo can't do everything to please the gamer thats where other companies come in to fill the gap.
I will agree though that they are stuck in the past because of the ever changing industry. They need to come up with something new to stay relevant. They did it before in the 60s and 70s when they were still manufacturing toys/arcade.
3. This I agree somewhat seeing as how they have been very conservative and stubborn with things like a full blown online service. But don't count them out just yet. They were still trying to pick up the pieces after Yamauhci retired during the GC and after but it left them with a nasty scar. During the SNES, and N64, was when things were going south since the aging president had done some questionable thing during this time. The reason they've been slowing the evolution in gaming is because it's been going to fast imo. One moment you have the systems like GC, PS2, and Xbox with okay/decent graphics to insane pseudo like PC visuals (at the time) with 360, and PS3. Which IMO have done more harm than good compared to Nintendo and their consoles.
4. & Whats wrong with exclusivity? Sounds to me like a bunch of whiney little babies who can't have their (personal) way. Exclusivity is about making a console unique from the competition. Thats what helps draw consumers to that console thus drawing more console sales. Nintendo has Mario, Zelda etc.. Sony has GOW, Modation Racers; MS had Halo, Gears of War, an so on. having so many mulitplatforms doesn't make that system any more different than the other(s). Those policies at the time were necessary to fix what developers before Nintendo (of the 2nd gen) did that caused the famed crash.
5. Again (as in the above) These regulations were necessary to prevent a saturation of poor quality software. It applies to other industries. A properly regulated market will thrive. Though at the same it can't be too regulated or it will stagnant. & IMO Nintendo was doing it more logically.
6. This could've been totaly right if the Industry knew its place when it comes to providing a proper balance between costs and the push for better gaming technology/development. True, on one side (like I said) Nintendo have been very stubborn in approaching new ideas for gaming, but on the other side, the industry has been too agressive on how they think companies should adapt to current trends. They wanted better, stronger hardware and thats what they got but with a big trade off. That would be higher costs: in development, marketing, etc. Which in turn left many to go bacnkrupt. Nintendo went the safer route with the Wii and to some extent the U. The maine issue is that dev made too many AAA titles and less A and AA. There needs to be a balance. They need to stop believing they're Hollywood.
7. All I saw/read in the next three posts were just claims that pointed out ancient history. Times have changed. The Industry isn't this helpless little child that needed to be watched over constantly with supervision and restrictions.
8. Again, your conclusion keeps bringing up ancient history that doesn't reflect Nintendo nor the time when the industry was at its infancy. In the end, Nintendo's "playing it safe" motto is their greatest strenght and weakness. It all boils down to what they're trying to do to fix their shortcommings because of an ever changing industry that (like with Nintendo) is improving but at the same time ruining itself.
