RolStoppable said:
Your assumption that the "casual crowd" doesn't want to buy dedicated hardware anymore is solely based on the sales of the Wii U and 3DS. But these systems suck ass, having hardware features that don't come anywhere close to justifying their higher price tags compared to the previous generation on top of being features that the market clearly doesn't want (so price cuts won't change the trajectory). The only redeeming quality of these systems are Nintendo games, otherwise they would have been dead in the water within a year of launch. Your analysis is a lot like concluding that nobody wants to buy Super Mario Bros. anymore, based on sales of the Nintendo 64 and GameCube. It's pretty hard to sell things that don't exist in proper form or don't exist at all. Also, iOS and Android own nothing. When has there ever been a complete control over consumers in the video and computer game space? Additionally, playing on one device doesn't rule out playing on another device. Furthermore, it's simply not feasible for iOS and Android to completely satisfy someone like the Wii Sports fan because there is nothing comparable on those devices. And that right there is the catch and the reason for Nintendo success or failure; the Wii U is a rejection of the Wii spirit, highlighted by the different standard controllers for each console. The Wii could thrive regardless of what other companies did, because it couldn't be substituted. On the other hand, the Wii U is a worse PlayStation or Xbox thanks to its lackluster third party support. It doesn't matter that the Wii U is backwards compatible with Wii controllers, because everyone with half a brain knows that games won't be tailor-made for the Wii Remote in such a setup. But even if such games were made, it's outright insulting that people are forced to buy a new console for games that could have all been on the Wii they already own. That's why Nintendo gets the middle finger from consumers. Your suggested best course of action is a trap that businesses commonly fall in, because it looks like the safest path. Focusing on your best consumers isn't a bad idea on the surface, but ultimately you are cutting off the pipeline for new consumers while your existing pool will most likely shrink with each passing year. You know, that's pretty much the reason why there is a continual decline in home console sales for Nintendo, because they kept going down that safe path. The exception to that trend is the Wii, but it's an irrefutable fact that for that console Nintendo took deliberate steps to open up the pipeline for new consumers. So my suggestion is the creation of devices that can't be substituted (this includes with each other) and are easy to understand. You get the existing consumers on board by making sequels to established IPs, you get consumers of other devices on board due to the unique appeal of your hardware, you have the potential to create new gamers because now people might finally see something that interests them. Now how does Nintendo accomplish this? In the handheld space, Nintendo is the only one left in town after Sony's exit. So by being a portable gaming device with physical buttons Nintendo is already in a unique position. What they have to do though is eliminating unnecessary things; something like stereoscopic 3D is a big no-no. And, of course, they have to put out software that possesses traits that can draw in new consumers. Being the only one doesn't mean much when there are no fresh new IPs. In the home console space, Sony and Microsoft are very predictable. Dual analog controllers, gritty games, online multiplayer focus. The only other thing to keep in mind for Nintendo is that they have to avoid self-sabotage. There is an abundance of sales data, so they should have a good idea of what type of software is able to gain traction and reach beyond the consumer base they currently have and what type of software is time-consuming to make, yet doesn't shift hardware. |
I guess maybe it seems like casuals don't want dedicated hardware because Nintendo made some mistakes but I honestly cannot see Wii U/3DS doing a whole lot better if they basically just made Wii 2 & DS 2, would Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Brain Training/Nintendogs have the same impact as they did back in 2005-2009. Wii/DS benefitted alot from being the right products at the right time, they had virtually no competition for this demographic. If smart devices were around back in 2005/2006 then Wii/DS likely would not have seen nearly as much success as they did.
It's not impossible, but it's very very unlikely Nintendo can win back this crowd in massive numbers, it's just hard to compete with free games on devices everybody already owns. Wii wasn't a massive success because people thought those were the hith quality games ever, they were successful because they were simple pick up and play games that were fun in a group setting. Paying $200+ on hardware and $50-60 software is too much for these people now.
U didn't really explain tho what u think Nintendo should do next-gen, ur being very vague and just saying make hardware that is easy to understand and new ip that can draw in new consumers. How do they do this? What type of games do u believe will bring in this audience? Mini game compilations and fitness games won't do it for the console, that's been played out and is no longer new. Educational games/pet simulators on handhelds? Nope, once again played out and no longer new. Same goes for motion controls and touch screen gaming, they aren't new and every device has them, so what can Nintendo do to make their hardware/software seem new and fresh again to this demographic?
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
