MrMe said: They should really follow what the big 2 are doing and try and do it a bit better. But no, they don't. They decide to go with the gaming is fun and should be cheap option. The majority of the public agree and flock to this cheap and cheerful games system.

You must have never taken a business course. because you'd know in business you don't ever just try to out do another business escpecially when they are the current leader(as sony was with the ps2) In business there are two ways to go, make things bigger and better, or makes things cheap and accessable. Nintendo saw to companies fighting over the first business model and smartly realized the second one was being ignored. Becuase of this Nintendo has no competition, meaning there is no cheaper no more accessible game system out there. I can call this brilliant and daring, but in all honesty it was the only move left. Why on earth would they try to go toe to toe with the other two companies when they would have been facing alot of competition and have been at a dissadavantage? That would have garantueed them third place.

MrMe said: Game_boy said: It is impossible to find a phone without a camera now, without paying a premium for the 'privilege' of having no camera included. Exactly my point. The consumer no longer has that choice, because the industry has taken it away from them. If Nokia (or someone similar) had said forget this and just carried on producing a basic phone (no 3G, no video etc etc) and it was a big seller, would "mobile internet subscriptions, digital music stores and various kinds of premium data transfer like video conferencing." have had so much invested in them? Would the mobile phone industry be as advanced as it is now?

Yes it would still be as advanced as some people would find those options. The only difference is the people who actually need those options would pay a premium for them, instead of it getting passed on in everyones plans. I find it funny you consider this a good thing that excess product you'll never used gets forced on you. If, much like a cellphone the gamesystem starts coming "free" with purchase of the service (Games), then you'd have a point. However in a system where you actually have to pay for the extras like blu-ray, HD-DVD etc, an "All in one" won't work, because there will always be someone willing to provide the lowest option to make money. The "all in one features" that most people want (if not use) become standard. In a way you can say nintendo "spoiled" it for Sony, but it would be more accurate to say that Nintedo actually found the right demand in a free market economy. So, they didn't spoil anything so much as make a good buisness decision.

leo-j said: @TWRoo They came out earlier, they brought better graphics, THEY stole all PS franchises, what do you expect? They did stop sony.

They may have stopped Sony trouncing them so quickly yes, but there is no Way Nintendo would have been trounced by Sony had there only been those two consoles, I would argue Nintendo demand would be actually higher (mainly due to America) though selas would of course have been similar) wheras Sony sales would be much higher, but still lower than Wii, probably by 2-3 million.

mesoteto said: i persoanly hate the idea of an "all-in-one"--mainly b/c the moment that one of it parts becomes out dated the whole machine is now worthless--imagine if they had mad an all in one with VHS? where would that have gotten you- and Mr i an not disagreeing with you that the wii is a fun machine--i play GH3 almost every night as well as mario and ghost squad--what i am disagreeing with is your stance that one of teh biggest items in the gamming world shouldnt have a say in how games are going to be played and what to expect from them

 I don't much like all in one machines either, except in consoles... In other products I feel like it's better to have it do one thing splendidly rather than all things sub-par.

Kasz216 said: ... Yes it would still be as advanced as some people would find those options. The only difference is the people who actually need those options would pay a premium for them, instead of it getting passed on in everyones plans. I find it funny you consider this a good thing that excess product you'll never used gets forced on you. If, much like a cellphone the gamesystem starts coming "free" with purchase of the service (Games), then you'd have a point. However in a system where you actually have to pay for the extras like blu-ray, HD-DVD etc, an "All in one" won't work, because there will always be someone willing to provide the lowest option to make money. The "all in one features" that most people want (if not use) become standard. In a way you can say nintendo "spoiled" it for Sony, but it would be more accurate to say that Nintedo actually found the right demand in a free market economy. So, they didn't spoil anything so much as make a good buisness decision.

Precisely. That was what I meant. Nintendo has slowed the console feature creep that if allowed to continue would make consoles more expensive for unwanted features in the future.

Personally I resent Sony trying force Blu-ray down the throats of gamers to ensure they win the format war. If I want a HD player, I'll buy one seperately.

I don't mind MS approach with dl movies and such, but it's totally not a selling feature either. Similarly, I don't give a rats ass if my cell phone plays mp3s, has a camera, plays games, or does half the $#!t that are now standardly included. I just want one that has good signal, looks cool, and is simple to use (I hate endless menus). However, since cell phones are usually free with service agreements, it's not a deterent like the price or a 360/PS3 are if they do.

I also reject the entire arguement that VG are art that's popular nowadays. Hogwash. They are entertainment like movies. And like movies, you could make an art-flick/game, and like movies, no one will see or play it except a select few. MS and Sony seem to cater to the art view, Nintendo rejects it and focuses on fun. That's what most people want in a vg machine, simply fun. Most people on forums like this might disagree, but then, this is the very select few that might appreciate an 'art' game,

MrMe said: Ok, the 2 main contenders after the last gen were Microsoft and Sony.  Sony had a huge marker share, they were the ones who will lead us into the next gen.  They decide to turn the games console into an entertainment hub, top notch graphics, huge power, loads and loads of non-gaming features.  It will be the future.  Yes, it comes with a big price tag, but it'll be worth it, no home can be without one. Microsoft do roughly the same thing, not quite a feature packed, not quite as expensive, but the idea is pretty much the same.  Then along comes Nintendo, who shouldn't have a say in this gen.  They should really follow what the big 2 are doing and try and do it a bit better.  But no, they don't.  They decide to go with the gaming is fun and should be cheap option.  The majority of the public agree and flock to this cheap and cheerful games system.   We all know, pretty much, that Sony + Microsofts vision for the future is probably right.  One box in the home to do just about everything.  But because of Nintendo this vision is still just that, a vision.  Did Nintendo spoil it for the rest of them?  Would consumers just have accepted that this was the price to pay for the future and bought 42.62 million (Wii+360+PS3) consoles so far this gen?  Or has Nintendo just tapped into a market the Sony + Microsoft were never planning on tapping into anyway?

This is so wrong it is not even funny. If that "vision" would be that what people want, why aren't they buying those machines? Mass-market-joe is happy if he has a pc, a dvd player and a gaming machine, he doesn't want to have everything in one box. This probably is what Sony wants, but definitely not what the market wants.

MrMe said: andors said: The consumer will choose what they want not Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. They are trying to sell to the consumer not the other way around. Agree, to a certain extent. The industry will always have a fair bit of power over the consumer. Nintendo gave the consumer another way, which the consumer took, with open arms. I'm just curious as to what would have happened if this other way wasn't offered to the consumer

Sales in the 7th gen would be in decline and eventually the market would crash.

People don't believe it but Nintendo saved the industry (again) with DS & the Wii.

Lots of people would have opted out of the 7th gen altogether had it not been for Wii & DS.

Clue? The many many people still sticking with the PS2 to this day.

John Lucas 

nintendo just made an other market strategy because they had to do that they would had get crushed by ps3 if not nintendo would had died if the went sony`s and micro$ofts way

^good point john