Mr Puggsly said:
I dont think the N64 expansion pack was a failure at all and it added value to numerous games via extra features like 4 player modes. Since it was a relatively cheap upgrade it also was used to create games with more potential than the original hardware. The PSP improved specs werent really used for games. The DSi improvements wasnt for cartridge games per se, more like online stuff. The New 3DS has replaced the original model and the games that take advantage of it have seen great improvments that the original specs are not capable of. Reception for it has been positive from what I know and people want more games to take advantage of it. Mobile platforms are a dying market and I dont blame that on New 3DS. You have taken a stance but your arguments are weak in my opinion. |
The 3DS reception has been positive? Why do you think that ? Is it the fact that the flagship New 3DS exclusive sold game horrifically bad (only 150,000 copies world wide - annual releases of rugby games sell better than that). Or the fact that the New 3DS has only sold 6.3 million consoles in a year and a half on the market? Or the fact that almost half of New 3DS sold were sold in the first quarter of its release? Or the fact that the New 3DS only made up 22% of 3DS sales last year? Or is it that hundreds of developers that aren't supporting the additional performance in any way? Please tell me who is receiving it positively. Because the fact that the few people that bought it probably like it doesn't really matter that much. Show me how the new 3DS directly puts Nintendo in a better position (in terms of dollars and cents now or in the forseeable future) than they would if the new 3DS wasn't released. Because that's what truly matters to a business.
In fact, if you look at user reviews of xenoblade chronicles, there's quite a few that are pissed at Nintendo that the game they bought doesn't work on the regular 3DS they own. You could legitimately argue that the introduction of the New 3DS might have actually weakened the platform as a whole, especially considering that the R + D Nintendo spent developing it could have been spent giving the 50+ million existing 3DS owners a better experience instead. You'll be hard pressed to find an impartial industry analyst that will says that Nintendo made a good financial decsion in releasing the New 3DS as it is. It was a risk Nintendo took that flat out never payed off.
See you're just looking at it from the hardcore gamer pojnt of view that's willing to spend $300+ on a new console every 2-3 years that just wants the best console experience possible. You're just seeing it as "well these spec improvements made some games better so of course it's worth it". When in reality that's the least relevant from a game developer or a console developer point of view. Or you know, the people that actually stand to profit off the success of a console platform. Let's use an example to illustrate my point. Take a look at the original introduction of the Xbox One. For the gamers that wanted it, what Microsoft was selling was the greatest concept for a console ever, but that turned out to be a very tiny fraction of the people who Microsoft thought would want a console like they introduced. As a result they were pretty much universally ridiculed and lamblasted.Pre-orders were bad. The launch of the Xbox One was set to be a gigantic flop. So MS pulled off what they said was impossible, they conceded and changed the platform into something tens of millions of more people would buy, and have bought. So why did they do that? Why didn't they just make the console that a small fraction of buyers would totally love? Because making video games and video game consoles is a business, and the objective of that business is to make money. If the idea is no good, and consumers as a whole reject the idea, then the platform becomes weaker, it's hurts the consoles sales, and it hurt's the console maker's bottom line.
When you're considering whether these specification improvements truly were successful, ask yourself this: How many of these improved specs actually made the platform stronger, improved the console's sales momentum and made the console maker a satisfactory return on investment as a result?
Ohh right. None of them can really argue that. Introducing a higher spec console mid generation has never improved a consoles sales long-term. It has never lead to increased game sales and profits for those game developers that support it. It has never lead to industry-wide third-party support of the higher spec console. It has arguably never led to a legitmate and meaningful strengthening of the platform in the eyes of the average prospective gamer. It has probably never even so much as recouped the R+D that went into developing it and producing it. If you want to argue that any high spec mid-generation console was successful at the very least you have to demonstrate the higher spec console actually did ALL of the things I mentioned previously. Because at the end of the day, those are the things that actually matter as far as the video game industry is concerned.
