Jumpin said:
I would agree with you on the rest, but this is where I think our agreement breaks. What I'm talking about is the core hardware and platform philosophy as opposed to market dominance. Although, I do think that the best executions of Nintendo's strategy will inevitably be dominant over any iterative strategy. When it comes to the philosophy over the generations, Playstation has been very different from Nintendo. Playstation is about releasing a consistent piece of hardware with upgraded components generation over generation, and has a strong media component (For example: CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays). Nintendo is about changing the way people play games generation over generation (For example: d-pad, scrolling, shoulder buttons, 3D, analog sticks, touch screen, motion controls). I am not saying Nintendo is progressive, while Sony is conservative. I am saying that Nintendo's core philosophy is an attempt at keeping the way we play games fresh. Nintendo can be confusingly conservative sometimes, and it has really hurt them, and no time was this more clear than during the N64 and Gamecube stretch. Nintendo's core interface with the N64 involved analog sticks for 3D gaming, very progressive moves at the time. At the same time, Nintendo was highly conservative in how they maintained their feudal Second Party organization, AND cartridges, which automatically meant Playstation had FAR more space at a fraction of the cost when compared. N64, as a result, was a resounding failure, and the biggest self-inflicted blow Nintendo ever dealt themselves as a brand. Gamecube was just the aftermath, it wasn't interesting to many because it wasn't anything new. It was just a playstation, for kids, with a less capable controller, and a less capable medium. On power: Neither Sony nor Nintendo started out as a "Lets make the most powerful console!" style company. Nintendo even start trying to dominate on the power scale until the N64 and Gamecube, and when they got trounced by the much less powerful Sony consoles. Sony didn't get there until the PS3, and Sony lost that generation too, spent most of it in 3rd place. Right now is the first generation where the most powerful console is going to win, and it has little to do with the power, and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo and Microsoft screwed up on interface causing the price of their consoles to be much higher than they otherwise could have been.
I suppose saying "true" Nintendo fans, as I did earlier, was probably incorrect. The fans that want an alternatively branded Playstation console (We'll call them group A) are still Nintendo fans, they're just a different sort. They don't care about Nintendo's philosophy, they care about Sony's philosophy, and how powerful the console is, they just want Nintendo to be the biggest and strongest Playstation-style console, they're fans of the Nintendo logo. The second group (group B) are more interested in how Nintendo is going to advance the industry, and aren't necessarily fans of the conservative approaches Nintendo sometimes takes (We liked the 3D and analog sticks on the N64, but disliked the cartridges and second party organization, even if we were fans of those second parties). Group B wants to see Nintendo successfully forge fresh new experiences that revolutionize the industry. Another core experience that Group B Nintendo fans love is the local multiplayer, experiencing games with our families is important, we grew up playing NES with our siblings, and we played Wii with our friends and our own children, and the same deal goes with DS. That's probably why Wii U was not popular among group B, while Wii was extremely popular. In short, Group A is a fan of the Nintendo brand, while group B is a fan of what Nintendo does. |
You have a good way of trying to correct the idea that nintendo fans CAN want a console like the Playstation while still being fans, and then at the same time slight them like you did previously. You're wording is very passive in it's attempts to make those fans seem less legitimate.
You first tried to slight them by saying they weren't fans, then you tried to correct yourself to seem more fair and neutral by saying that they were fans. But then you went on to say that they just cared about the company logo....and that, is ridiculous.
The NES to Gamecube all offered innovative experiences that many in Group A care about, and want to see succeeding more than ever. In other words, they want a future where Nintendo consoles are comparable to their competitors, but still offer innovative Nintendo experiences. Games. Isn't the whole point of a game console the games themselves? And what better way to make games more innovative than to make a console that supports games of all variety. The wii wasn't that console, it was innovative because it forced 1st parties and occasionally 3rd parties to use a control scheme new to the gaming industry, a conrol scheme that by in large ONLY positively affected the Wii's marketing and thus sales, and not the actual gameplay experience itself.
In other words, you can be a fan of Nintendo's philosophy, but not of the need to incorporate it into the consoles design. All Nintendo did with the Wii realistically is change the way you play their games, but did that really make the individual experiences any better? Besides Metroid Prime Trilogy, Pikmin, and Zelda for hardcore gamers, I can't think of a single game who's value was exponentially increased using the Wii remote. Sure the pack in title Wii Sports was great, but many gamers don't find value in it.
I do find myself genuinely excited for the Switch. It's simply the best "gimimck" Nintendo has ever had. But it's for one big reason = the only gimmick is the games. Think about it, the ability to take your games on the go is something universally appealing, it has nothing to do with a specific control scheme. The ability to play all of Nintendo's first party offerings is something game centric. And if Nintendo Switch has compatibility with Nintendo's previous hardware offerings, than we can use the Joycons with a motion sensor, we can use a touch screen on the controller, we can use all these things that are important to the few titles that Nintendo heavily supported with these features during the Wii/U-DS era.
Where the problems lie is mostly if the third party support will even be their. My guess is : yes. So for me, i'm personally more concerned about the storage device, online capabilities, etc.
