| RolStoppable said: RolStoppable said:
1. I said "gamers are expected to pay a premium for consoles, games and online", so the only logical conclusion from this context is that I was talking about a paid subscription service. As for the casuals, the huge error in your view of the world is that you only see two groups: hardcore and casual; and everything that isn't hardcore is then casual by default. This discussion is going to be a waste of time if you don't reconsider your stance, because aside from hardcore and casual, there would also be people who've never owned a console. So the black and white thinking does not work because there are at the very least three groups out there. Ok, then I misinterpreted what you were saying. But going back even further than that statement, what you were initially complaining about was the fact that publishers patched their games after release, NOT that costumers had to pay for online. I then pointed out that online also have enabled a lot of good things in gaming. Have I have said that there are only two group of gamers? I don't think so. I might only mention casuals and hardcores, but I fully recognise that there are a whole spectrum of people inbetween. I have used casuals and hardcores are two opposite poles and generalized. I myself doesn't fit any of the two describtions. 2. I was refering to your realisation that most gamers (in your context, the hardcore) are quite dumb. 3. Competitors are hurting themselves by presenting their home console as the proper way of gaming, with everything else being inferior; unfortunately, that happens to include their own handhelds then. Regarding the PSP and Sony's decisions (Vita will be their last handheld), the PSP can be written off as a fluke; additionally, its software market was anything but healthy, so its high hardware sales are misleading. GC will be addressed further down. As for the difference between hardcore and core gamers, I left my own text in the quote above and bolded the important sentence; a distinction between hardcore and core also means that there are at least four groups out there (extension of point 1). Regarding Nintendo's attempts to expand gaming, they are 2/2; I already said why the other four consoles don't qualify as attempts (also a part of my own text that is left in the quote above). Well, MS doesn't have a portable device, so I don't see how that would hurt them... If the PSP had an unhealthy attach rate, then the 3DS must be sick! http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/ PSP AND PSV both have an higher attach rate than 3DS... That's numbers 21, 22 and 23 on the list. And the original GameBoy is at number 20... That means the PSP is a more successful console than 3DS in EVERY sense of the word. It sold more units, it sold more games and had a higher attach rate. AND it didn't loose Sony a lot of money. The only distinction you make between hardcore and gore gamers are that only the hardcores are biased against Nintendo. There's gotta be more to it than that. 4. If you make a broad claim like smartphone gamers are never going to buy dedicated hardware, you better back it up with respectable survey data; I don't think there is any data that suggests what you claimed, so the statement was most likely driven by your disdain for casual gamers. No, I said that they aren't interested in additional hardware because smartphone's satisfies the gaming need they have. I'm not suggesting that they would NEVER buy a console, I even said that they would be more likely to pick up the PS4 instead. Which you failed to address. Why would they choose Nintendo over PlayStation? And I disdain your describtion of my attitude towards the "casuals", firstly because its not true, and secondly because you have to basis to make this statement. You have extrapolated things from my arguments and painted your own picture with it. 5. So the company was trying to sell their technology to Sony and Microsoft, but got turned down. That means if they hadn't approached Nintendo, there was a 0% chance that they would have found a buyer other than Nintendo approaching them. But feel free to come up with a company that was looking to get into the video game business at that time. How can you be sure that NO ONE would have been interested? That's a ludacrous statement if I ever saw one. Who said that it had to be used as a gaming tech? It wasn't even a sure thing that this tech would be used at all by Nintendo; the board (or something like that) were arguing amongst themselves whether or not this was a good idea. Now, IF this company wouldn't have approached Nintendo with the Wiimote tech, do you think Nintendo themselves would have gone after it when they couldn't even agree on using it when they were handed the tech? Said pretty far fetched to me. 6. If Rayman Legends flopped on Wii U, then it flopped everywhere; I don't think that works in favor of your argument. ZombiU had a mixed reception and the only reason why it wasn't profitable is because it had botched development (game was redone halfway through, previously named Killer-something from Outer Space); that's solely on Ubisoft. Now for the most important thing, the underlying issue why you have so much trouble to understand my reasoning: Yes, I think it's fair to say that Rayman flopped altogether... But there are many other games that hasn't done well on Nintendo's systems: Red Steel 1 and 2, No more Heroes 1 and 2, ZombiU might have had a difficult development cycle, but it still didn't move all that many units, and the most recent title is Bayonetta 2. All of these titles (except Zombiu and maybe Red Steel 1) were ALL well received 3rd party games, and didn't sell well on Nintendo platforms. So don't blame 3rd parties for making shitty games, because that's not (entirely) true Revenue minus expenses equates profit or loss. If Microsoft has, say, 20m Xbox Live Gold subscribers at $50 per year, then that's $1 billion of revenue. If they post a yearly profit from gaming of $500m, but you removed the aforementioned billion, then they would post a loss of $500m. What this means is that Microsoft depends on the paywall for online multiplayer to profit from video games despite all the third party royalty fees they collect. The same holds true for Sony; while they had no problems during the PS1 and PS2 eras, development costs of games have drastically multiplied since then while sales numbers of software have not. That's why third parties have introduced DLC, special editions and preorder bonuses while console manufacturers have made a paywall mandatory. If your product's popularity doesn't increase at the same rate as production costs, then you have to charge more from each individual customer. So gamers pay $400 for the console, $50 yearly for online multiplayer and $70-100 per game because it would feel incomplete without special editions and DLC. That's the path I reject and the one you embrace; however, I am quite sure you haven't really thought about the consequences of your demands, that's why you have been so opposed to my arguments. Yes, maybe you're right about this one. I might have to think long and hard about this. If I demand a powerful console from Nintendo, they might have to sell it at a lose for a year, and then games might not be able to cover that lose. A paid membership might be a good answer to that... However... Nintendo could cover that with their mobile games – if it's successful. That way they would soon make money from their core gaming business again, AND they might be able to become console leaders. A console with the same power, the same games AND exclusives AND free online would surely sell better than the competition. 7. Now for the GC: What I am saying is that the PS2 did a better job than the GC (and Xbox) at catering to people who were interested in a PS2-like product. After all, it had a headstart of 18 months, so the competition was always lagging far behind in total software releases, plus the PS2's advantage in installed base made it receive countless exclusives. While the GC had more multiplatform games than any other Nintendo console, none of it mattered because it didn't differentiate the GC from the PS2. So in order to convince people to buy a GC over a PS2, it came down to exclusives, first and foremost first party games. It definitely didn't help that Nintendo made Super Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker the way they are, because both sequels weren't exactly what people wanted. However, even if they had been what people wanted, GC hardware sales would have still remained in failure territory. But the big picture here is that multiplatform games were never crucial to Nintendo. When you think about the important third party games on Nintendo consoles, they happened to be exclusive. It's the same on handhelds. So if it always comes down to exclusive software that sells Nintendo hardware, it's in Nintendo's best interest to play to this strength instead of obeying industry standards that compromise Nintendo's strengths. When Nintendo tries to appease the industry, their hardware doesn't sell because it feels boring; the result is that third parties stop supporting it. When Nintendo does their own thing, they are potentially going to lose out on multiplatform games; however, since the hardware sells, third parties will make games for it. That's why, as paradox as it may sound, Nintendo is better off by not listening to third parties; it's better for Nintendo and third parties. They didn't listen to the 3rd parties with the N64, and look what that got them. From being number one they were now religated to second place. Then third place. And they didn't listen to what 3rd parties wanted with the Wii U. |
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
