RolStoppable said:
That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10. This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out. While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality. |
At bold: Very true, that's one big thing why I love Nintendo, they leave most of the bullshit out. I mean they even sold Super Mario Run for $10 with no additional costs - but obviously people are too stupid to see the good deal in it. During the whole PS3 era I never paid for PS Plus and for PS4 it was not before this year that I paid for it (because I thought Fall Guy would be a game my girlfriend would like, you got it for free with a PS Plus account, but it was no game for her - back to Super Mario Party).
Back to topic: Obviously we have a different opinion about core and hardcore gamers and the difference between them. Let me try to explain it from another point of view: There are player types who don't like Nintendo games at all, simply none of their IP's. But they like AA-AAA 3rd party games. Some like Action-Adventures with realistic graphics like Assassins Creed, Tomb Raider, GTA, Red Dead Redemption..., some like shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Destiny, Rainbow Six: Siege,... others prefer racing games like Dirt 5, F1 2020, Project Cars, Need for Speed,... and others like RPG's like Final Fantasy, Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout, Persona 5,...or fighting games like Street Fighter 5, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, The King of Fighters IV,... or realistic sports games like NHL, NFL, UFC, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 1+2,...and many more. All these games are not available on Nintendo Switch. If they were, some (and we're talking about millions) would buy or at the very least be tempted to buy a Nintendo Switch. Again, why should they buy one if they already own a superior version of the game on PC/PS4/PS5/XOne/Xbox Series S/X? The answer is the same as before: Because it's lazy and therefore attractive to play those games comfortably on the couch or bed, plus as an additional bonus you can play it on the go.
Granted, if it would be possible (and in reality it's not possible) to have a super high-end hybrid console with all the bells and whistles, good battery life but without overheating and ports from PS5/Xbox Series X/S would technically be easy and cheap to port, surely Nintendo would bring out such a hybrid and surely virtually all 3rd parties would bring out virtually all of their games to the Nintendo Switch (assuming that it would continue to sell like hot cakes). Certainly, Nintendo feels no bitterness against 3rd party AA-AAA games.







