By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 06 January 2016
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:

If they do, fine. I would make that model very much like a PC and very easy to port PC games to. Make it cheap and simple to port. 

If they don't want to, so what? 

That's the advantage of a multi-tiered hardware philosophy, you're not stuck up shit creek if one model isn't selling as well as the other one. Apple doesn't give a crap if you buy an iPad or an iPhone or an iPod Touch ... as long as you buy one you can access their app ecosystem and they make money. 

The home console market is what it is, denying it and wishing it was something else isn't going to change that either, or making consoles for the tastes of Japanese housewives isn't helping them much either. 

No one is asking for a niche console that only has 1/10th the content of every other standard. Would you want a cable box that had 1/10th the channels? Or internet service that only let you access 1/10th of the internet? Then why is this supposed to be an attractive proposition to someone looking to invest in a video game platform?

The game market actually really didn't change -- Nintendo did. The NES offered the widest breadth of content and had something for everyone even if you didn't give a crap about Mario or Zelda. They are the ones that have turned themselves into the Sega Master System of the console business ... the niche platform with a limited roster of a few nice 1st party games that are supposed to be enough to convince everyone that they should buy into that platform.  

I don't think a tiered system works for the console market. In the past different SKUs meant that the cheaper model was perceived as gimped and people didn't want to miss out, so the effective price of the system was the one of the fully featured SKU. Certain things work (like XL models for handhelds or different HDD sizes for home consoles; differences that are self-evident for consumers), but the idea of a pro console is doomed to failure. Improbable that it would see sustained developer support due to its small target demographic and therefore low installed base.

If said cable box had all the channels that I want and is significantly cheaper than other cable boxes, then sure, I would go with that one. It's not necessary to have all of the content. Sony is without Nintendo games for over 20 years now and they managed to be successful regardless. You may say that Nintendo has a smaller amount of games (and you are right), but which publisher's games have the biggest pull when it comes to selling systems? Easily Nintendo's. It's not an unrealistic idea that Nintendo content alone could keep a platform afloat. Nintendo and Sega aren't in the same league, a quick look at historic software sales data makes that clear.

That's because Sony makes basically the modern NES. The Playstation is really nothing but the natural evolution of the NES concept just taken into account the natural growth of demographics (ie: people who were kids with the NES were going to want to keep playing as they got older). 

You may be happy with limited choice, but most people are not, if everyone was like you Nintendo wouldn't have any issues, but that isn't how things work. The "savings" Nintendo provides are rather immaterial too, if I'm buying a product I intend to use for 5 years+, then saving $50 or even $100 works out to a whopping $1.67 savings per month over 5 years (at $100 less). Once people are invested in the idea of getting a console you may as get the one that gives you the best variety of games.