Wyrdness said:
Casuals may not be informed but they aren't stupid, they'd know to go for a dedicated console then a TV box with very lite gaming features. No shit Sherlock casual gaming is bigger to day which is all the more reason Nintendo should have handled the situation better as they'd have a sizable chunk of that pie. You know what other games people can play for free bloody facebook games has that stopped Steam successfully appealing to the same crowd with it's offerings? No, many of these people have this distinct taste for such games but will want something with a lot more meat on it and then the's the issue of quality control. I still remember in the PS2 era when people were saying free Facebook games would impact consoles and PCs because of their huge growth at the time. |
Nintendo could have handled the situation better in some ways, but honestly giving away games for free was not really "competing" it was flat out a dirty tactic in traditional gaming terms. It's like being mad at a boxer for getting beat up by a wrestler ... a boxer is not trained to grapple or fight on the ground once the wrestler gets a hold of the boxer, it's game over. Apple/Google do not play by Nintendo/Sony/MS' rules.
The traditional game makers have all had their lunch money taken from them by the smartphone/tablet boom (bye bye Sony portables, bye bye Microsoft Kinect too).
There's nothing Nintendo could do once Apple basically allowed free/$1 games and Google too.
Wii Fit U is a far better game than Wii Fit, Nintendo Land is a great casual game, probably a good deal better than any mini-game compilation they made on the Wii. Nintendogs + cats is better than the first one. I'm sure the new Brain Training 3DS is filled with lots of challenging brain teasers. None of it mattered.
Was Facebook even a thing in the PS2 era?







