New Nintendo Platform Teased at Conference, "NX"

[DanneSandin]

RolStoppable said:

DanneSandin said:

But indie wouldn't be as big as it is without XBox and Playstation - and of course Nintendo. But would indies be as big as they are on consoles now if Nintendo had continued to dominate?

And you make it out to be as if everything WAS better in the Nintendo days, which it clearly wasn't. Nintendo is perhaps THE single most important gaming company that ever existed, at least from the 3rd gen onwards, and they did what they had to do back in the days. But that policy of theirs were also restricting the industry, which was needed in the 80's, and it's a good thing PS came around and shock things up.

Where did I say that hardcore gamers decide the image of gaming? I don't think I did. Media and the general public decides the image of gaming. As they did with GamerGate last year. And that "Wii image" is long since dead by now. The image of gaming now is either that of mobile gaming or hooker killing, so there's a case to be made that Nintendo's "Wii image" didn't have any long lasting effects. And that's because gamers, as a whole, enjoy killing hookers more than to work on their bodies.

No, they don't light up the charts, and that's because killing hookers is more fun than to make tough desicions and examine humanity from your own actions. And these games are NOT mimicing other media. They're telling the stories through your actions. They're not long cut scenes with a few gameplay elements thrown in there inbetween the cut scenes (as in MGS). They're leading the way for telling stories that's unique for gaming. YOUR actions, YOUR consequenses. But they're the beginning of what games CAN be, how games CAN tell compelling stores without extended use of cut scenes.

But honestly, even if Nintendo had continued to be the top dog, it's very unlikely that gaming would be as big as it is today. What PlayStation did was attract older gamers, those that felt that Nintendo didn't really offer them anything more. That's also one of the reasons why Sega did so well with the Genesis; they were the more "mature" option that had blooooooood in Mortal Kombat. Even with new technology, Nintendo haven't reallt diversified all that much when it comes to Ratings; they're still still family friendly company and refuses to let go of that pure white image. This image (and adhering games) would surely restrict the growth of the market if Nintendo dominated compared to the land scape of today.

My bad, I think it might have been Khan that made the argument that this is the epoch of 3rd parties calling the shots... Yes, there is no demand for "stinking" 3rd parties among NINTENDO FANS. But EVERYONE else seem to enjoy them. So I think you have to ask yourself; do you want Nintendo to cater only to the fans and accept a small (or declining) revenue from dedicated gaming, or should they do something about all of this and try to get 3rd parties AND all the other gamers onboard as well? Everyone keeps telling us Nintendo fans how WELL Nintendo would do as a 3rd party developer; how they would sell millions upon millions of their games. Well, I think we quite easily can turn that argument around; imagine how many CONSOLE Nintendo would sell if they had the same srtaing point as PlayStation or Xbox - that is to say, a powerful console, proper 3rd party support, a more diversed line up of games and an image of being for EVERY gamer (aka loosing that "kiddie" image). They'd sell bangbusters and probably sell more than the PS2, AND they'd sell more copies of their own games.

Indies would be even bigger on PC and the same reasoning applies for those gamers who seek "mature" content. PC gaming would have been more popular, because if you didn't notice, the primary thing that PlayStation and Xbox do is draw games from the PC on their own machines. So in an alternate reality, the content wouldn't change, merely it's location. And with the location being changed to an open platform instead of the closed environments of PS and Xbox, that sort of gaming would most likely be better. Things like mods, lack of payments for online multiplayer; that's pretty basic stuff to highlight a couple of clear advantages.

I think there's an argument to be made that there's a limit to how big PC can get, since it's more expansive with a PC compared to a console, and it needs a lot more maintance, or that's how it's seen anyways, and it's also a common conception that it's simply easier to get a console; you have all you need to start gaming right away. Well.... up until this gen that is :/ But yes, PC would be bigger, but HOW much bigger? The "casual" (hardcore) gamers would probably not bother. And let's remember that it wasn't until quite recently PC got a control method OTHER than keyboard/mouse (a widespread one at least). And if this hypothesis of yours holds true, the PC scene must have been pretty big right before PS1 launched, since that's where most "mature" games would have been and therefore that crowed as well. Did PC rival console gaming in 1994-95?

You did indeed imply that hardcore gamers determine the image and you did so by bringing up that Nintendo games are called kiddie. That's straight from the playbook of hardcore gamers. As for the Wii, it lacked a lasting effect because Nintendo stopped continuing it. Not only did they prematurely reduce and stop Wii support, they also shelved the philosophy that gave birth to the Wii. The Wii U doesn't do more than carrying on the name, but it's pretty easy to see through the facade when one takes a litte bit of time to examine the console (no motion controller, no new IPs to draw in new crowds, high price).

I also said that doesn't mean they're immature, and that Nintendo promote their games as something FUN, further implying that this is part of their "kiddie" image. And maybe kiddie is the wrong word altogether; family friendly would be a better word(s). But family friendly, something that can be enjoyed by EVERYONE, is often seen as a bit... kiddie. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Frozen, Big Hero 6 - all movies and characters that can be enjoyed by everyone, but are mostly seen as "kiddie", or made for kids at the very least. And the same thing goes for Nintendo and their games. No none gaming adult would call Super Mario for an adult piece of entertainment, but that doesn't mean they think it can't be ENJOYED by adults.

As for the key point (final paragraph), there's no demand from other gamers to play multiplatform games on a Nintendo console either. Because, you see, what they really want is that Nintendo games are brought to PS and Xbox. I will tell you how things would play out if Nintendo launched a powerful console, proper third party support, a more diverse lineup (I am assuming you mean Nintendo themselves making some M-rated games here, because proper third party support would otherwise already cover diversity and make this redundant as a separate point) and an image of being for every gamer.

1. Sony and Microsoft would launch the same PR as always, refer to Nintendo as inferior, point to some colorful games and call it the same Nintendo as always. Impressionable gamers gobble it up as always, so Nintendo's image is instantly kiddie again and the console becomes a no-buy. Truth through repetition does the rest. I mean, come on. After over 20 years you must have noticed the pattern that Nintendo's unfavorable image in gamer circles doesn't come from Nintendo's software output, but Nintendo's competitors. During the Wii era Nintendo got branded with a casual image, because kiddie simply doesn't work when it's well-known that adults are buying the system in droves. The entire point of slapping such an image on Nintendo is to make them an inferior option.

2. With this image being established before the launch of the system, initial sales are also sluggish due to a high price (you wanted the system to be powerful, after all). As a result of underperforming hardware sales, software sells below expectations as well. Since Nintendo fans will gravitate towards Nintendo games (the best titles on the system) and third party exclusives (if any are available), and since other gamers won't buy the system to begin with (see point 1), multiplatform games will be hit the hardest. Kiss proper third party support goodbye, because Nintendo won't be given any room for error; third parties don't have that patience.

3. Not much left for the console at this point, so Nintendo has a failure on their hands and needs to try to salvage the situation somehow. In the middle of this, DanneSandin will tell me that a powerful console with proper third party support and a good image could actually work, so we go back to point 1 and the cycle repeats.

I think a lot of that can be avoided if Nintendo successfully advertise their "mature" games, and does so heavily, and even launches a counter-smearing campaign. They don't have to smear Sony or MS, but rather counter the "kiddie"-campaign launched by them with even MORE "mature" games in the pipe line.

Now the only option to break this cycle is not acceptance of ever-declining revenue for Nintendo. What can also be done is redefining what it means to be a video game console. While Sony and Microsoft will still launch a smear campaign against Nintendo, it won't matter because PS and Xbox do not work as substitute for the Nintendo system. And while other gamers still won't buy such a Nintendo system for multiplatform games (because there won't be many to begin with), they might just buy it because it is different from everything else. Lastly, there's the added effect that people who aren't interested in PS and Xbox will buy the Nintendo system precisely because it isn't like PS and Xbox. In the sum this means that Nintendo fans will buy earlier (system is affordable due to ignoring stinking third parties), more other gamers will buy (view the system as a supplement to their PS and/or Xbox), and people who are currently not invested into the console market will buy. Result: Growth for Nintendo as a manufacturer of dedicated video game hardware.

Can you please explain to me how this should be done? How do you redefine what a console is? If you're gonna make something "different" that means it has a new controller or someother gimmick attached to it. And what people would prefer Nintendo over PS or XB, except Nintendo fans? The casuals? I think they're pretty content with mobile gaming. And if this were true, Wii U would have sold better, no matter if it has "Wii" or not. Maybe those people would just buy a PC instead? And we see right now that Nintendo fans aren't buying earlier than others; Wii U wasn't front loaded all that much. And if people aren't interested in console gaming, why would they buy Nintendo's console? Redefining what it means to be a console. So you think Nintendo should re-create a new Wii every generation? How easy do you think that is?

And in case you didn't notice, neither Sony or Microsoft ever managed to get all gamers onboard either. It's a feat that cannot be accomplished.