RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
1) But we may be looking at a very large Number of people who own a Nintendo system, and play Facebook games. That is the point. Such gamers may end up saying, "I have all I need on Facebook and my new iPhone/iPad/iPod/android".
None of us have numbers, so nobody will budge. Sadly, common sense says most people who own a DS/Wii also own a smartphone/tablet. But you won't accept that. Agree to disagree :S
2) The fact that you say it's Nessie doesn't prove anything, nor does it make it Nessie. I'll just leave it at that.
3) You still fail to explain why these kids wanted one, where I've used common sense to tell you they bought it for the games, music and movies (i.e. multimedia). Hence you remain nonsensical.
|
1) Common sense also dictates that most people who own a 360/PS3/PSP/PSV also own a smartphone/tablet, but Sony and especially Microsoft are rarely mentioned in this context. What makes Nintendo so much more vulnerable to social and smartphone games? Nothing really, unless you apply the same logic as spurgeonryan earlier in the thread.
|
They are as much a threat to MS and Sony, maybe even more. But Nintendo has much more to lose, their coveted bread and butter pick-up-and-play audience that so served them with the sales of the 39 games I provided to Oniyide earlier (if you took the time to appreciate that, as I did your link). Sure doesn't look like it though.
|
2) I don't need to prove anything. You need to show that Nintendo's business is threatened, but so far you are just taking the opposing position for the sake of arguing.
|
It is threatened, as the keynote YOU linked to clearly shows. There are market offerings for games available and marketed to the mass at 0-1$. Iwata, knowing this, clearly stresses the fact that, in retaliation, Nintendo must ensure a true value-add, be it by improved SW quality (so as to differentiate), or unique HW to SW integration. The fact that he sees it and you don't proves to me that Nintendo is in solid leadership. However, I don't like how they're kind of still pushing it under the rug. Fair to say "this is our stance", but not cool to say "there's no real issue here", when clearly there is, and they are taking measures to defend against the obvious threat.
They need to let consumers know that their offering is WORTH 30-40$, that's the whole point. This would have never been an issue had the AppStore never been that popular.
| 3) I've told you that these kids wanted an iPhone, because it is a phone. Just like everyone else buys smartphones, because they want a phone. But for some reason you think that games are a major reason, because smartphones happen to play games. It's as nonsensical as saying that the majority of PCs are bought to play games. There are PCs that are bought specifically for gaming, but those are a clear minority. The same applies to smartphones which is only highlighted by the failures of the N-Gage and the Xperia Play. The vast majority of people want their phones to be phones first, not some hybrid. On the other side of the spectrum, the vast majority of people wants their gaming machines to be gaming machines first, not some hybrid. |
@bold. I'm talking about kids, women and the elderly. Such folks rarely require a dedicated PC gaming rid for their gaming needs. This point is thoroughly irrelevant.
@italics. You're wrong, and your explanation (see above) follows suit.
@N-Gage. This is a horrible comparison in light of the apple iPhone. You should take a cue when you see one. The experia play has nothing on the iPhone. Nothing.
@italics. You could not be more mistaken. If that were true, people would be buying the cheapest phone with phone capabilities. The success of the iPhone proves you horribly mistaken. Horribly.
