| artur-fernand said: I totally get that. But quite frankly, I see no difference between trying to appeal to a whole different, probably non-existant fanbase, with consoles that are so drastically different from the competition, they might as well not be competitors... to trying your chances with a traditional console, similar to PS4 and One - thus gaining at least third-party support. They're trying to hit that sweet spot they achieved with the Wii. Sounds just as risky to me - probably even more. |
You're confusing "not being in the arms race" with "not trying to appeal to gamers". Many internet-forum gamers like to make claims like the suggestion that Wii only appealed to "teh cazualz", but it was never true. Nintendo appealed to the same 20 million that bought the Gamecube, plus more people, many of which were lapsed gamers.
What Nintendo achieves by being different is a situation in which serious gamers can consider getting a Nintendo console alongside either a Sony or MS console, in order to get both styles (that is, for the serious gamer, who is likely to buy multiple consoles, they could get MS and Sony consoles, but that would mostly be redundant, or they could get a Nintendo console and one of the other two, and get a better variety). They provide unique appeal that can't be obtained anywhere else, including previous consoles. And so, for those who want to buy only one per generation, and already have the previous generation MS or Sony system, Nintendo's systems can be appealing just for that.
Is there a risk, still? Yes. But it's not a risk of getting stuck in an arms race they can't win. It's a risk of failing to provide a product that appeals to enough people. And generally, Nintendo hasn't had that problem. The early part of the generation, when they were launching the 3DS through to about a year after the release of the Wii U, they struggled a bit... but it was a short-term issue. In an arms race, it would be a long-term issue.
