New Nintendo Platform Teased at Conference, "NX"

[DanneSandin]

RolStoppable said:

DanneSandin said:

 

1. Yes, Sony and Microsoft helped the industry, but like I said in a previous post, what is good for the industry is not necessarily good for gamers. Since Sony and Microsoft act as enablers for anti-consumer practices, I don't think that's anything that deserves kudos.

The only anti-costumer practice I see from them is paid online... But I'm probably ignorant to a whole host of other practices. Mind enlighten me? Genuinly curious.

I know that Mortal Kombat is held up as kind of the starting point or the crucial point for Nintendo's kiddie image, but Sega's marketing already worked really well before. In the specific case of MK, what is usually ignored with the focus on the removed blood is that MK on Sega had inferior controls; one attack button had to be omitted while the block function was assigned to the Start button. The game played awkwardly, but that this didn't matter highlights once again how little games actually matter. Instead it was all about the blood and an image.

But you have to see how that whole debacle hurt Nintendo? And even how it drove away 3rd parties in the end? I can only agree that it's a shame that games alone don't matter, but it's pretty clear that gamers want blood and violancce in their games, and that they did back in those days as well.

2. The Wii ads didn't prevent Nintendo from getting branded with a negative image right from the get-go. Instead of kiddie, it became casual. Like I said in a previous post, that's because kiddie simply doesn't work when so many adults are buying the system; and the purpose of projecting such an image on Nintendo is to make the own product look superior, regardless of if it actually is (see: Sega Genesis/Mega Drive). The smart thing that Nintendo did with the Wii was to go for people who couldn't care less about an image, that's why Nintendo could succeed despite the usual smear campaigns. You are free to believe that Nintendo could win over hardcore gamers somehow, but I certainly don't. Fortunately, Nintendo doesn't agree with you anymore, so NX will be  a redefinition of console gaming which rules out hardcore gamers as a primary target audience.

3. Sony and Microsoft's worthwhile first party output doesn't amount to much more than a handful to a dozen of games for a generation. Pretty much all the big games are third party titles on their consoles, so it's pretty hard to make the case that first party games play a vital role in selling the systems. And as such, it doesn't really matter what games Nintendo makes, because if it were really about games rather than image, then multiplatform games would be able to move Nintendo hardware just like they move Sony and MS hardware. But all the historic sales records show that multiplatform games do pretty much nothing for Nintendo. If you don't like the example of the Wii U, you can look at the GameCube. More capable than the PS2, cheaper, better looking games, but still a complete failure in getting the hardcore on board.

Are you talking about high scoring titles, or high selling ones? And we all already know that the PS and XB ARE indeed 3rd party boxes more or less, that it's those games that drive the sales the most. But it was Nintendo that made this bed themselves when they kept on being overtly harsh against 3rd parties. Sony never had to make an effort in gaining 3rd party support, but MS worked quite hard to get 3rd party support (and still do) and it paid off quite well last gen. It's about the games and image of course, and that's why I argue that Nintendo need to make games that drives core gamers to their console. Mario isn't gonna cut it. It's not what core gamers want the most, although they might pick it up once they got the system, but it's not the primary reason why they buy consoles. The reason why 3rd parties doesn't do anything for Nintendo is because gamers have chosen other consoles instead. Why did gamers buy the original PS? Better 3rd party games (more of them at the very least) and image. Nintendo have cultivated a family friendly image and have had very little violent games, but more grown up gamers (as in years lived, not mentality) quite obviously wants something else. It's not ALL about image, and it's not ALL about games.

4. I am not sure if your claim that the Wii would have never been made in such case holds up. There wasn't any company who approached Nintendo with touchscreens, but they still became a part of the Nintendo DS. If something doesn't come to Nintendo, then Nintendo goes after it. Same outcome.

So you think that the Wii and the Wiimotes would have been made even if Nintendo didn't get that tech from outside? That's... foolish. NOTHING suggests that this would be the case. Nintendo themselves weren't sure about it at first. They might have tried something else, but it would NOT have been the Wii.

The Wii U is not withered technology. I had this same discussion with curl-6 a few weeks back and you make the same mistake as him. The purpose of lateral thinking with withered technology is the creation of an affordable entertainment product that is profitable right from the outset; you aren't selling technology (which is outdated), you are selling entertainment (whose value doesn't depend on production costs). You look at the Wii U and say "far less powerful than the PS4", but I look at the system as a whole and see the most advanced controller in video game history. There is a reason why the Wii U is the most expensive Nintendo system to date, yet is still sold at a loss. It's because Nintendo abandoned the philosophy of withered technology. The same holds true for the 3DS. You would say it's withered technology because it's less powerful than the Vita, but the 3D technology doesn't come cheap and that's the opposite of withered technology (which refers to already refined manufacturing processes that make it cheap to use such technology).

Ok, I conced on this point. Wii U isn't withered tech. I think what I was getting at is that the power is lagging far behind the competitors.

As for the final point, of course it's hard to come up with new stuff that actually succeeds. Although the underlying point here is that Nintendo has to do it because every time they set themselves up for direct competition, they will get branded with an image of inferiority. And if even Sega could succeed with such a strategy despite having the inferior product themselves, then it should be clear that much bigger companies (Sony and Microsoft) will succeed as well. So to reiterate point 2, NX will be something new. This sets up Nintendo for a chance for success as opposed to the guarantee for failure that the Wii U was. Or in other words, if Nintendo defines the rules instead of making themselves subject to the rules of others (i.e. making a console for the hardcore), then Nintendo is in the driver's seat.

But isn't there something to the slander in that case? If EVERYONE have an easy time painting Nintendo as "kiddie" doesn't there lie some truth in it? It doesn't have to mean "Nintendo is only for kids", but rather "Nintendo doesn't offer what (core) gamers want". If we examine that last statement I think it's quite easy to say that Nintendo is "kiddie" because they have almost nothing for the older more "mature" audience. Like I said, that doesn't mean Nintendo games are just for children, but they offer nothing for grown men looking for something a bit "darker". They're looking for something that represents their age better than Mario. While "mature" games still are very much immature, they LOOK and FEEL like something for a 30 year old, while Mario doesn't. Mario looks family friendly, and if you want something that represents your age, well... CoD is better suited for that purpose. Not because it's a deep and profound game of any sort, but it's more similar to other entertainment you consume. If you consume movies like Godzilla, Edge of Tomorrow, Man od Steel, The Dark Knight - would you then go and play only Mario games? No, because they're not in the same age catagory as those movies. If you enjoy those kind of movies, you probably will enjoy Uncharted, Battlefield, Batman Arkham and such games a  lot more.

EDIT: Saw that you conducted the experiment.

Yes I have, but most gamers aren't like that. Most gamers go where the games AND image is. That's why PS have been so successful, or XB last gen (and even this gen).