bdbdbd said:
ps4tw said:
It depends how you look at it. Is the Switch technically similar to the Wii U? Not quite. Is the business model just as filled with holes? Most certainly.
The issue with third party support on the Wii was certainly the power, but somewhat for the Wii U, and most certainly for the Switch, a major issue is the architecture. The Xbox 1 and PS4 use X86, giving publishers a larger market with little extra development overhead. With the Wii U and Switch, apart from compensating for weaker specs, the change in architecture is a massive issue - it took the guys who made the Uncharted remasterd series over a year just to get an image to show
While the Switch is portable, it's not truly a handheld game console (HGC) - if it was, then Nintendo would surely start to halt all HGC production and focus everything on the switch to prevent market cannibalisation? Therefore, comparing market tactics for two items that are in different markets doesn't really make sense. Different customers, therefore different business tactics. Also, the Wii U had a $50 pricecut less than a year after launch...
Consoles are an essential part of Nintendo's tactics, more so in the light of mobile gaming. The 3DS has sold slower than the DS, and the Wii U was a flop. If Nintendo just rely on HGC, can they guarentee market dominance in 5 years? Unlikey considering the growth of mobile gaming, and decline in HGC sales - this looks to be a trend rather than a coincidence. You also can't throw around comments like without "The Wii could have sold no units, and Nintendo would still have been in a good place." without any proof; it seems to me you're just forgetting things like R&D etc, y'know, the cost it takes to make something. The low sales of the Wii U resulted in Nintendo having several quarterly losses, so it makes no sense to believe that zero sales of the Wii wouldn't have taken just as big a toll.
I'll tell you now exactly why the Switch is identical to the Wii U. They are both based on hilariously ill-informed, naive business plans that forget to look at trends in gaming, or lessons learnt from past ventures. The Switch is still underpowered, still using an architecture and game medium that'll be difficult to port to. Nintendo are still relying on game IP's that are woefully out-of-date, and are unwilling to change to market demand e.g. Capcom and Resident Evil. For all these reasons, the Switch is just another Wii U, and that's to say, Dead on Arrival.
|
The third party support was pretty good on Wii in the end. Switch seems to be doing everything the opposite to Wii U, and you definately are wrong with Nintendo not looking at trends in gaming. If everyone is tapping their phones and tablets today, Nintendo is obviously trying to appeal this audience. The AAA industry on the other hand have been diminishing in the last decade. If the trend continues, soon there's no AAA industry at all anymore.
|
In what world was Wii 3rd party support any good? The best it had was watered down versions of Call of Duty, while missing out on BF3, and all Unreal engine games. Same goes for Wii U - no Borderlands, no Battlefield, no Battlefront, no FIFA pass 2013. These game series have been some of the largest in the past few years, and all were absent from the Wii U...
With regards to trends, while Nintendo might be dipping it's toes into the waters of mobile gaming, their IPs remain largely unchanged for the last 30 years!! Gaming has dramatically changed and is considered more mature today, yet Nintendo still have a heavy focus on IPs that are considered childish. If it wasn't for the ~10 million strong crowd of hardcore Nintendo fans that are happy to buy anything with the Nintendo stamp on it, Nintendo would have been dead years ago.
The AAA industry hasn't been dying - what the hell is that based on?? Ubisoft, Blizzard, Microsoft, Sony have all reported an increase in '16 revenue over '15.
