| Zod95 said: I think you are going too far. I had never presented such a logic. I only acknowledge that vocal music (with instruments, of course) demands a higher minimum effort than instrumental-only. Music is Mario 64 is simpler, it has definitely less instruments than in Sonic Adventure, less music tracks and no vocals. Is it enough for you? It's not merely because of vocal music (this is only an indicator). If some musicians create more with less effort, then they are most probably more expensive so it all comes down to the same thing (I have been saying for quite some time): effort / time / money. Design choices are not valid arguments. If, by design choice, I decide to create a very simple game that is extremely easy and quick to develop, I'm not as commited as other dev that puts millions of euros and man-hours work on another game. |
It's very interesting that you would make this argument, considering you have previously discounted artistic creation as being (paraphrasing) "effortless".
| Zod95 said: A company doesn't need to profit 32B$ to survive. |
However they do need more than $0.
| Zod95 said: All companies want to maximize profits, that's why they are companies and not non-profit organizations. But they have different ways to get there, that's what distinguishes them. Nintendo is more about easy-business and greedy moves. Sony and Microsoft are more about raising up the standards and trying to be the best of the best. If you take a look at the OP, you will realize there's no part saying Nintendo is evil, just what is its mindset and long-term strategy. If you consider that to be evil, that's already your opinion. Business is not about red numbers, but it's definitely about pleasing fans (and I would add "other stakeholders"). We all can see how successful NES and SNES were and how unsuccessful N64 and GC were (because of Nintendo's bad practices from the past). We can all see how Wii was successful at the beginning and how unsuccessful it was at the end and now Wii U (because of the low quality/price ratio those eco-systems ended up to be). Nintendo doesn't take advantage of its dominant positions to thrive in the long-term, only to cash in as much as possible in the short-term. Sony and Microsoft act differently. Sony, for example, continued to expand their investments in videogaming despite 2 consecutive massive successes (PS1 and PS2). They think in the long-term, not in getting to 32B$ of profits as quickly as possible. Think about it for a moment. |
It's been mentioned to death that Sony and Microsoft may leverage off other departments, so pure profit from gaming isn't necessary.
Their consoles also serve as loss leaders, multimedia Trojan horses, advertisement boards, tools for brand recognition etc. which are all worth the additional cost to Sony and Microsoft, particularly when they can leverage off other departments.
