By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RolStoppable said:

One reason why I wanted to make this is because it illustrates what you quoted in another post. There's a notable difference in the approaches of Nintendo and Sony/Microsoft, but unlike the conventional wisdom which suggests that Nintendo carved out a niche for themselves because they can't compete, it actually shows that Nintendo stayed true to their roots while it's the other two manufacturers, especially Sony, who changed course. The addition of handhelds would strengthen this point, because there it clearly showed that it's Sony who can't compete with Nintendo, not the other way around.

Well yes, who don't know Nintendo have a hard time to grasp that uniqueness/dokuso was always part of Nintendo's path to success. Funny anecdote: when subordinates showed to Hiroshi Yamauchi their latest products in development he would always ask them why they thought people would buy it when commercialized. If they answered because the product was marginally better than the one from competitors Yamauchi would throw a fit of anger because he always demanded to their subordinates to come up with something unique and desirable. He knew that the company would make more money and the success be more durable if they created new uncontested space instead of stupidly compete with others for what was already established.

A console like Wii is more in tune with Nintendo's DNA than a console like GC (which tried to ape PlayStation). In early '00s Nintendo didn't retreat, on the contrary they leveraged the company core strengths.

As for Sony/PlayStation changing I disagree with you.

I mean Sony, just like Nintendo, had to adapt to modern times, therefore changes happened, but they did so by following their own DNA (just like Nintendo went through modernization following their own DNA).

The roots of the problem is that Sony and Nintendo were always totally different kind console manufacturers, with totally different philosophies. With time these differences became more and more pronounced.

Sony was always a third-party driven console maker which meant Sony decision making was always based on third-party publishers' attitudes. Sony always focused on what is cool at the present (what's "cool" changes with each epoch, it's situational) and always strived to bring videogames near more mature entertainment forms like cinema (note: creators in new entertainment form suffering from inferiority complex compared to other established entertainment forms and trying in some way to imitate them to seek legitimacy was always a common behaviour).

In contrast Nintendo being a first-party driven console maker always took their decisions based on their vision and their games always (at least from early on) aimed to be unique and to base their entertainment value on basic instincts of the human beings because they want them to trascend time.Think at the exhilarating action of sliding down a slope, that sensation is common in every human being, be them male or female, young or old, born in 1900, 2000 or 2100, independent from the cultural background. That's what Nintendo try to use to create games whose value is eternal.

You said that Nintendo remained true to its roots while Sony changed, in reality both remained true to their DNA it's just that the identity upon which they base their success acts differently with changing times.

As for the last sentence, Sony cannot compete with Nintendo on Nintendo's terms and vice versa Nintendo cannot compete with Sony on Sony's terms.Their skillset are too incompatible to compete head on.

Since we are touching the argument, there is another big difference between Nintendo and Sony which pertain the commoditization of videogames. It isn't often talked about but I expect in the future to rise in prominence.

Last edited by Endymion - on 05 April 2021