potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:
The way you block together consoles and handhelds is completely arbitrary. 100%. It only has relevance to you because you say it does. Notice I didn't really talk about handhelds when I mentioned Nintendo's decline in sales? Its because of the things you mentioned. It's not nearly as clear-cut as the console decline. However, deciding "this handheld belongs to this generation and that generation, and this handheld belongs to this other generation even though it was sold more during another generation, and if we do all of these groupings, look! Nintendo sells about the same during these arbitrary, non-consistent periods of time" is just completely meaningless crap. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
Also, if the Wii is not a fluke then, Nintendo can easily prove that by making a console that sells just as well as the Wii. Anyone willing to bet that's going to happen? Anyone? I'm willing to wager there are far less people willing to bet that the NX home will sell as well as the Wii than people would be willing to bet the PS4 would sell as well as the Wii a year before the PS4 was announced. I wonder why that is. Could it be because it's completely unreasonable to expect a Nintendo home console to sell over 100 million units?
|
No, not arbitrary at all. All of these groupings are between consoles and handhelds who shared the majority of their cycle side by side, do they match up 100%? No, but it's all pretty close and gives a general picture. The only one that can be argued is the original Gameboy since it had a dual generation life span from 1989-2003 so I compared it's first half to its second half which happens to match up close to the times SNES/N64 were on the market.
Look at the beginning of the quote tree between u and I and the other person that u quoted, the entire conversation has been about Nintendo going with a unified approach so it's only logical to talk about both sides of Nintendo's hardware, in which case u are completely ignoring their strongest side in order to continue ur "Nintendo is doomed" narrative.
A fluke means they got lucky and luck means success/failure brought upon by chance rather than through ones own actions. Chance means to do something by accident or without design. None of these things describe Wii. Nintendo saw how gaming was becoming more and more complex which made it hard for new and former gamers to enjoy, games were becoming more and more expensive to develop and that entire demographics were being leglected.
So what did they do? They created a low power console that kept hardware price and software development costs low, they created a controller that was simple, easy to understand and could be used by anyone, they created games that could appeal to multiple age groups and demographics and also created games in entirely new genres with brand new concepts.
Is that a fluke/luck/chance? No, that's called having a great idea and having great execution.
|
It's absolutely arbitrary. If someone wants to group every 5 consoles that come out as a generation it's just as arbitrary as saying "between this time period and this time period is one generation, unless its a handheld then it's between this other time period and that other one". It literally doesn't mean anything. You just decided on random quasi-convenient criteria to what signifies a generation and poof that's suddenly a good way to measure Nintendo's success? Nope. not buying it. Let's just look at each type of console and compare it to the others in its lineage. That makes a lot more sense to any reasonable person, except some Nintendo fans who insist it really means something they totally promise just believe them okay? No.
Alright, if the Wii was no fluke, all Nintendo has to do is repeat its success. Go ahead Nintendo blow us away with a NX home console that sells 100M+ units. It should be easy right? Tell me though... if you were to bet. would you bet the NX home sells more like the PS3 (80M+) or more like the Gamecube (20-30M)? I think we know where you're betting if you actually had a significant amount of money on the line.
Try to be honest about this one too: if you were to bet a year before the PS4 was announced would you bet it would sell more like the PS3 (80M+) or more like the gamecube (20-30M)? I think we also know where you're betting.
What do you think that tells you?
|
There is nothing arbitrary about it, I already explained to u how it's makes sense to block such devices together and ur either being ignorant or fail to understand, either way I'm done explaining it any further.
That's not how u define a fluke, the most successful video game company in history making a successful video game product is not a fluke. Game & Watch, NES, Gameboy, SNES, GBA, DS, Wii, 3DS all the market leader during their time on the market. Donkey Kong, Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Kirby, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii Series all massively successful franchises by Nintendo.
Do u want to know what does qualify as a fluke? The Pet Rock, a product by a guy who never made another successful product before or after, who made it as a joke and didn't expect it to be successful. That is a fluke, not the world's most successful video game company making a successful video game product.
|
It isn't is it? Let's take two examples to show just how arbitrary you're being. The Nintendo Game & Watch, if you even want to call it a handheld console considering they only played one game (most people do not, they made almost 100 different models), was released in 1980. Which means you've decided the generation it belongs to is the NES generation of course, which was released in 1985. That's almost 6 years between the time the Game and Watch hit the shelves in NA and the NES hit the shelves in NA.Now along comes the gameboy in 1989 apparently replacing it. Somehow a console that spent more time on the market before the NES was released than it did being released along the NES as a primary handheld belongs to that generation. 100% totally arbtirary.
Another example: the Gameboy was Nintendo's primary handheld in NA from July 89 to June 2001. That's a time frame of Nearly 12 years. When the Gameboy was Released, the NES was Nintendo's primary household console. During it's release, the SNES was released in Aug 1991, and the N64 was released in 1996. Both the N64 and the Gameboy were replaced within 3 months of each other in NA in 2001. The gameboy spanned 3 console "generations" but in your eyes it only counts towards two.
So, you've decided that the two years the gameboy sold before the release of the SNES actually count towards the SNES generation. You've also decided the day the N64 released the gameboy sales related to the SNES generation magically end. You've also decided that the Gameboy also counts towards the SNES
sales from the day the N64 was released. So just curious, do the sales before the SNES was released count towards the SNES generation or the N64 generation, because once again, the entire thing is completely arbitrary.
That covers the handhelds for half of these supposed generartions, so my point should be crystal clear: The whole thing of matching console "generations" with handheld "generations" is completely 100% arbitrary and pointless. It serves absolutely zero meaning. It means nothing to anyone with any bit of common sense.
|
