zorg1000 said:
No, my argument was that nobody will consider them gimped. Its not a 100% comparable situation, ill give you that, but the overall point still stands. Yes they are in competition in the general sense that all products are in competition with one another. Some people will have to choose one or the other, buts that no different than someone having to make a choice between a new TV vs a new Smartphone, what im getting at is they arent overly redundant products where if you have one than you have no need for the other. I still dont get how they shaved $200 off production costs in a single year. You're right, we are getting pretty in depth about this and kinda getting off track, but there is one last thing i need to say, Nintendo is constantly talking about how they cannot devalue their IP and that is exactly what such a model would do, they dont want to go from selling $40-60 premium software to allowing unlimited use of all their games for a low monthly fee. It doesnt benefit them. |
"No, my argument was that nobody will consider them gimped."
Except that people complain about that all the time in regards to the Wii U. And it's a bigger deal when we're talking about the same game. If one system has way better looking versions of all multiplatform games, then wouldn't that be an advantage for that system?
Yes they are in competition in the general sense that all products are in competition with one another. Some people will have to choose one or the other, buts that no different than someone having to make a choice between a new TV vs a new Smartphone, what im getting at is they arent overly redundant products where if you have one than you have no need for the other.
Go to your local electronics store. I'm basically 100% sure that the Wii U will be found in the same section as the PS4 and XBox One. I'm pretty sure they're not selling iPhones in the TV section.
The function of the Wii U and the PS4 are essentially the same. They both primarily play games. Nintendo may focus more on a certain demographic, but there is a huge overlap. You're saying that they're not overly redundant, but you can get Skylanders, Just Dance, or the Lego games on either one. Both of them feature Kart Racing games, both have platform games where you create the levels. Unless Nintendo gets no third party support again, a significant part of their libraries will be redundant.
Unless Nintendo does something completely off the rails, the products are redundant to a large extent.
I still dont get how they shaved $200 off production costs in a single year.
I'm not an expert on these things, and I don't know if you are either. Arstechnica is generally a fairly reliable source.
You're right, we are getting pretty in depth about this and kinda getting off track, but there is one last thing i need to say, Nintendo is constantly talking about how they cannot devalue their IP and that is exactly what such a model would do, they dont want to go from selling $40-60 premium software to allowing unlimited use of all their games for a low monthly fee. It doesnt benefit them.
I don't think offering it as a service is devaluing them. It's saying that their products are valuable enough that it's worth paying to be able to use them month after month. It locks people into their ecosystem, keeps players engaged, will likely generate more revenue than retail only model, and encourages a wider variety of people to try their games.
There are a lot of benefits. And either way, something like this is going to happen one way or the other. Blockbuster was offered the oppurtunity to buy Netflix, but they wanted to maintain their business model. And, we know how that turned on. In the technology world, you adapt with the times, or you get left behind.
All that being said I'm absolutely certain Nintendo is doing nothing like this. You just asked what I think they should do, and that's what I'd do if I was in charge of Nintendo.
