jarrod said:
|
Just assuming Nintendo is "holding back" is equally if not more poor reasoning. I'm just dealing with the facts at hand, which seems a safer route that assuming the existence of more internal Nintendo Wii games. The only even potential indication we have there is Pikmin 3, and even that is pretty suspect and a project that could be easily moved. Plus the development timelines match eerily to what the wind down for N64 and GameCube were; Zelda as the last climax, maybe an experimental title or two in the wings, but those usually get pushed to next cycle anyway in some capacity (see: Animal Crossing). Yes, N64/GC had far different market conditions than Wii sees itself in now (though I'd also argue their N64 drawdown was itself premature, especially in the US market), but there's a real similarity here all the same.
What facts? Nintendo has not released anything on 2011. There are no facts here. What you are doing is assuming there will be no more Wii games. Your entire claim, which is what I'm arguing, is based on bad evidence, one being that we don't know Nintendo's line up. They very well could have 20 games. They could have 3. But you claim thay will release a new system based on the fact we don't know how many games are being released and you assume it's 0. You're arguing the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. And again, why do you use the N64 and Gamecube as comparisons? The Wii is much healthier than they were and their last years on the market were dead. The Wii will still have Zelda in the early part of the year and Wii Relax somewhere else, which could easily mean more games later on, like it has always been.
I'd also like to point out that all of Nintendo's games for this holiday, as well as 2009's and 2008's were said that E3.
You also seem to be fundamentally missing my point with 3DS as a defensive measure... I apologize if I haven't "connected the dots" for you, but the reasoning here seems so clear I thought you'd be able to keep up. Laying it out, 3D is a defensive strike against iOS as it's something the iDevices can't really offer in the short term (due to being both single and touchscreen). It's a stark visual upgrade that also doesn't follow the traditional system spec/screen res upgrade path (which Apple seems locked into). Defense through differentiation and forgoing the traditional upgrade path is basically the same approach they took with with DS (against PSP) and Wii (against PS3/360) which also makes your "what other device has 3D?" reasoning for PS3 look pretty shallow and off point. Nintendo combats through differentiation, and they do that at a fundamental level (fundamentally, PS3D and 3DS are both still 3D). I'd agree there's a market strategy for 3DS being a PS3D spoiler (and you saw that pushed hard in Nintendo's E3 conference), but that seems pretty unlikely to be a structural approach to the platform given what we know about the development timelines and technologies involved.
Look at the bold, and then please, never say that again. Nintendo's entire strategy has been making inferior hardware with a new input. A new feature that makes the experience new. Why would "visual upgrade," be their defensive strategy? Doesn't that sound like the failed stategy of Sony and Microsoft.
The entire paragraph is you taking a baseless claim and running home with it. You have failed to prove why Apple, a company making phones and computers, is a threat, and why the 3DS would not be going after Sony. Not to mention you have said nothing on my point which shows Nintendo has been going after Sony the whole time.
But let me try one last time. Watch this (it's bad, so I'd actually try to watch the actual press conference). Now, forget Apple. Don't even bring them into the equation. Listen to what Reggie says. He is talking, almost exclusivly, about 3DTVs. He even mentions there is nothing to watch on big screen 3DTVs. It was all about current 3D, namely 3D TVs. There is even a video about the history of 3D which focuses on movies. If Nintendo was trying to stay ahead of the game (which they don't do. They have always tried to change the nature of the game), they would talk about how no one is doing 3D, and how they are ahead of the game. There was very little of that.
So, you need to establish your points before you try to run with them.
Apple's encroachment has also been well documented, both within the industry press and by the sales volumes we're seeing companies talk about on the platform. Entertainment is entertainment, and Nintendo and Apple are coming into closer spheres in that regard than most Nintendo fans seem willing to admit. Even worse, Apple's success here seems largely accidental at a planning level. Indeed Apple's gaming ambitions are dubious at best, they have an awful track record here with no internal R&D, yet they've almost stumbled into this market to great success and now they're reworking to capitalize on that. You're just being naive or contrarian if you really insist there's no potential crossover here. And your Atari comparison is frankly ridiculous.
You say they have an awful track record, but then they are a threat.
And what about cell phones? Were they not a threat? And if it is well documented, then, where is the documentation? What is their success? And the DS still does well. Are they really effecting the DS sales? And Apple has no internal developers. If software is the key, how can a company with no videogame developers and no hit game poise a threat to Nintendo? Heck, not to mention they are making computers and cell phones, not gaming machines. They will be the same as cell phone gaming we have now. How is this different than cell phone gaming? Why is it now a threat and not for the last few years? And all but two companies have failed in competiting with Nintendo, one who is gone while the other struggles. How is Apple, with no developement, going to pose a threat? There are too many questions left unanswered.
Nowhere did I say a new console ever launched exclusively due to piracy, but to say it can't even be a factor is simply driving one's head in the sand. Market realities drive these things, and piracy is certainly a market reality. Since you bring up PSP though, it's worth pointing out that the frequent PSP model refreshes have always brought improved piracy protection measures, and the 3000 model is still uncracked for widespread use. The push to try and shift to digital with the platform (and failed Go experiment) is also in part a response to the crippling piracy problem on the machine. Bringing up PSP in this case, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument.
No PSP2 helps my argument because they did not launch a system based on piracy (BTW, PSP Go is not a new system because Sony still makes 3000s and it didn't have any exclusive games.). Show me a console that has launched in part due to piracy? Also, if piracy is the problem, wouldn't they just make new Wiis have better protection and firmware? Why launch a whiole new console?
And you need to stop calling Japan just "one region". It's significance to the company pretty obviously extends far beyond that, and they frequently jump cycles due to it, even if the platforms are still healthy elsewhere. This exact thing happened with N64 and GBA, which both had to be forcibly "put down" in America. There's not even any real 'sacrifice' here, I'd argue there's a much larger potential return on a new platform in year's time even in America than there would be on Wii alone. NOA could've kept GBA going alone through 2006 easily, but looking at how DS exploded, I doubt they care all that much in retrospect (much to the chagrin of Mother fans).
I'm calling Japan what it is, a region. I'm not sure why you can't see that. I'm not saying they don't care; I'm saying that it, and only it, are not going to make their million dollar decisions. (EDIT:Forgot the "not")
The N64 wasn't heailthy. It wasn't like it was a blow away console. It still under preformed in the US. The PS1 doubled the 64's sales, and the 64 did poorly in the Other regions as well. The Wii preforms well in every region but Japan and still outsold the others. The Wii has also already doubled the N64's sales. How is that even compairable?
The GBA is also a bad example. The GBA was "sacrificed," for the DS, which was to test their new strategies, but also not to let the PSP run away with the market. They had to give up on the GBA. Again, not a comapirable situation. You keep wanting to comapir this situation to past failures rather than newer success (like having the Wii 2 two years after the DS like it was in 2004/2006).
You entire argument is either, no evidence, bad evidence, or bad comparisons. Notice how many holes I could just poke though you're argument. If I sat here, I could think of a lot, but I'm not goin to waste most of my night on this. I have yet to hear you make a strong argument. To make a conclusive one with a strong point that can be backed.
