Soundwave said:
The truth is no one's really tried an alternative model though. Gaming as a business is still in a lot of ways (at least on the console side) stuck in 1983 with the Famicom/NES. It's 2015 now. Maybe a new setup is warranted and old ideas should be challenged. Why not? It's not any of the "10 Holy Commandments" of Console gaming are serving Nintendo at all anymore .... they only serve to benefit Sony and MS at this point who have basically taken over the entire console market. I like the idea of taking away the focus on the hardware so much. Let the network be the focus (like iOS, like STEAM), and give the consumer freedom to purchase different form factors that fit their needs and tastes, a "one size fits all" console/handheld doesn't have to be the way for everyone. Yes game developers may have to adjust to scalable hardware, but as long as the configurations are kept relatively to a management number, it should be fine. PC devs (which is most/many PS4/XB1 devs) are used to working on software that must work on like 50 different configs. For Nintendo they will get used to it just fine too, especially when they don't have to make redundant versions of games (ie: 3D Land for portable, 3D World for console, Smash for 3DS, Smash for Wii U, etc.). |
You imply this would solve Nintendo's primary problems and that the expectations built up over the years are teh cause of their problems. I would say that notion is false. And I don't care what their next home console is or what business model they use, if they repeat their mistakes with marketing, image, and brand management, it will fail. Just like the Wii U and just like the GameCube. That's their primary weakness and until they fix that they will always - always - fail. If you don't market, you don't succeed. It is that simple.
Also, 3D Land and 3D World are perfect examples of how handheld and console games are not interchangeable; they are drastically different games with different concessions made in dificulty, length, pace, and level design to work with their platforms. In the case of such games, to satisfy all involved parties, they will still have to dedicate resources to two distinct versions or even just two different games. But another point is that the development issues would alreadly be highly aleviated if the two games used the same engine, which I do think they will have in place.
And decades of consumer expectations are not going to change with one platform, especially if MS and Sony don't make the jump. And given Sony's current financial health, I highly doubt they will take the risk. Because if this model were to fail, it would be a very, very constly mistake. So if Nintendo starts this new model to challenge the old and Sony decides to stick to the old, Nintendo is a sitting duck for all kinds of criticism as well as counter-marketing from Sony. Sony stuck it to MS when they tried their DRM stuff, how much more willing will they be to stick it to Nintendo who is trying to force in a new business model they are not at all comfortable with?
