By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 02 April 2015
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:
Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:
Jumpin said:
Nuvendil said:

No. Expectations of one market are not the same as the other. People buying dedicated gaming devices expect a minimal amount of support. Whether that support is supposed to continue or not, constant actual upgrades shatter consumer confidence as they feel support for their device is under endless threat. Also, those specs are atrocious. A Wii U level home console launching in 2017? Better be $99 if you don't want to be laughed out of the industry and even then it would be a joke. You realized by that time, used PS4s and Xbones will be at or bellow that price. Shoot, new ones will be getting close to that price if not being there already. Also, Nintendo making a raw tablet? What would compel them to do that? That market is over saturated; it is a bloodbath for anyone not already established. Sorry, but the whole strategy in the op is full of holes and overall a dreadful plan.

Agreed, this is exactly why iPhone, iPad, androidPhone and androidTab sales never went anywhere, consumer confidence was so crushed by the frequent updates, that no one bought those ever again. So says our supreme leader!

Not the same market.  Seriously, when did people forget that - to quote the part I bolded and underlined and italicized for ya - expectations of one market are not the same as the other.  Consumer expectations are different in each market.  Gaming devices have different core functions that motivate purchase. 

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? 

Actually I think 3D World would work great on a portable. 

Just like Mario 64, Zelda: OoT, Zelda: MM and apparently Xenoblade work great on a portable too even though they were never designed to be played on a portable initially. 

A good game is a good game, as long as a handheld has an instant sleep mode, the consumer is smart enough to be able to shut off the system at a snap of a finger if they need to. 

In terms of business model I say just make it a non-factor. You want a really higher end console. Fine, make the base unit of the home version upgradable easily (let people stack them). Mobile processors really work well functioning in unison if Nintendo is using a mobile processor they could scale it up and down very easily. 

Nintendo's job isn't to compete with Sony anymore, because they can't really. No one wants three "Sonys" on the market, there's already two. The fact of the matter is the whole "lets compete with Sony!" ship sailed the moment Nintendo allowed Microsoft to come into the business and gain a foothold. Once that happened the "Sony competitor" slot was filled. 

I think Nintendo's role now will simply be to be an alternative to other platforms which are inundated with hyper violent games and make profit. I can't believe it, but I actually sorta agree with RolStoppable on something (sorta). 

I frankly don't expect MS to last much longer in the console business but that's more of me.

But I will say this:  your whole latter part implying Nintenod couldn't compete I think is a complete misconception.  With the right decisions, Nintendo could really storm the traditional home console market head on.  They have a huge array of IP - both those tied to one style of gameplay and ones that are highly flexible - that cover a large range of genres, with potential to appeal to a wide range of demographics.  Much larger and more potent than Microsofts which have been in deterioration for years and they are only just now rebuilding.  Even stronger than Sony's in general, though Sony fills some gaps Nintendo doesn't. 

Basically, I firmly believe you have the flexible and inflexible aspects of the market flipped.  The consumer expectations you are suggesting to challenge have been firmly embedded in peoples brains for decades; changing their mind is going to be extremely dificult, extremely dificult to do if Sony remains faithful to them.  It's not about competition so much as appearances, something you - once again - underestimate the importance of.  Compared to Sony, Nintendo would look like a flake; that is an objective strike against their image, regardless of direct competition.   And if this new model fails it will cause irreperable damage to Nintendo as a first party, both financially and in terms of their reputation.  But Nintendo being competative head on?  There's nothing preventing that; they have all the tools to do so.  All Nintendo has to do is make the right decisions in marketing, hardware design, and negotiations with 3rd parties.  In fact, I would assert their problems with product and brand image caused by pathetic marketing is a major factor in 3rd party abandonment.  3rd parties are interested in platforms they feel are compatible with them; image is a major part of that as the image a product has determines the demographics it is likely to reach.  The Wii U's image was so poor, I doubt very many 3rd parties felt at all comfortable with the platform even early on.