gim·mick/ˈgimik/

Also, if I describe a gimmick as lackluster that should imply I think other gimmicks aren't.

Sorry for the misunderstanding pie

See, that's what I thought you were meaning.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, APM. :P

Ok, that doesn't change anything though. Simply saying that I was "being immature" doesn't make it true.Applying an adjective to both people doesn't make you neutral or correct by default. Nothing I really said was immature. Did you even read my first post to him, and his response to me? All you really need to read is the first two posts, that pretty much sums both of our attitudes up completely.

Edit: Also, stop talking about this now, the topicality has slowly changed and we are discussing different things now. Everything that was needed to be said about this has been said.

And that's what I do mean, the word 'gimmick' is only given negative connotations, not defined as something negative

@duckypwns

It's obvious you wanted to provoke him to get a response out of him. The fact that you posted your private messages here for everyone to see all but confirms this.

Andrespetmonkey 8 hours ago

"Let's look at the last 16 years of Nintendo's history, what have been it's greatest successes? The Wii, the DS and arguably now that sales have taken off, the 3DS. What do these platforms have in common? A great gimmick and a low price. The Wii is the least technologically advanced console of this gen by a wide margin, but thanks to being the first company to put motion controls in the mainstream and also being the cheapest console of the 3, it's leading in marketshare. The DS was well behind the PSP in power, but also well behind in price and it sported dual screens, something brand new to gaming, so it's achieved well over double the sales the PSP achieved. The 3DS is also lacking in the power department, especially when compared to it's closest rival, but it's also got 3D without glasses - a great gimmick, and after the massive $80 price cut, a low price.

What happens when a Nintendo console doesn't have a great gimmick and a low price? Well, Nintendo 64 and Gamecube happened, selling just over 50 million units combined; not terrible, but that's nothing compared to what any current gen console has accomplished. I think the Wii U will go down the same road. If the Wii U is going to be similar to Durango and Orbis in terms of hardware capabilities, then it loses the first major selling point it needs, the low price. Now, the Wii U does have one major feature seperating it from the other 2 consoles, the tablet controller, but it won't be enough. Motion controls were brand new when the Wii came out, dual screens were brand new when the DS came out and 3D without glasses was brand new when the 3DS came out. Tablet gaming, however, is something casuals have been doing for the last 4 years, and it's only going to get bigger. The Wii U's gimmick isn't anything new, it isn't as innovative as it's predecessors gimmick, so the Wii U loses the second major selling point of Nintendos greatest successes.

What if Nintendo go for a low price point for the Wii U? Now it not only has a gimmick that won't move units, but it's also lacking third party support. It has only it's first party software and die-hard Nintendo fans to rely on, and there are only so many Rolstoppables and NintendoPies out there, enough to make the Wii U a decent success, but not enough to truly compete with rival platforms.

Summary:

Low price = less power = no 3rd party support aswell as lackluster gimmick

High price = more power = loses major selling point of Ninty systems aswell as having a lackluster gimmick, bad sales could possibly lead to the loss of 3rd party support aswell"

congrats, really nice trolling

That strategy didn't really work out for the gamecube though, did it? (Although the gamecube had a whole heap of problems of its own).

Also, I'm not sure how true that second part is either.  Depends who you are I guess.  For example, I've grown slightly tired of Nintendo first-party franchises because they don't change very much between installments (best example of this: Animal Crossing).  They'll show flashes of brilliance here and there (Metroid Prime, Super Mario Galaxy) and that's great, but it's not enough for me to invest in a console.

To clarify - I'm not saying that Nintendo first-party franchises aren't strong - of course they are, they're the best in the business.  But more and more people, especially among people I know (although this is just colloqial), have no interest in playing slightly tweaked versions of 20 year old formulas.

By comparison, I think especially Sony - but to some degree Microsoft - have been better at providing new IP's with first-party franchises, and that's what I buy into a lot more.  Sony is pretty self-explanatory, but Microsoft too did very well at the start of this generation with providing console exclusives.  I guess we'll have to see what the next gen holds.

Nintendo's "baseline" goal should be to beat Sony for the no.2 spot worldwide by a comfortable margin.

They have stronger internal franchises than Sony does, they now can actually outspend Sony (hello there Monster Hunter 3DS) because of Sony's eroded financial standing, and the Wii brand is just as well known as the Playstation brand now, and they have a full year headstart.

They may have to "settle" for a smaller sized userbase than the first Wii, but can make up for it by attracting more core users that spend more on games.

It will be first or second imo.

If anything Nintendo needs to revert to older formulas of their games if they want their games to sell more consoles. NSMBWii is almost case in point here, while Sony struggles to build real system-sellers, even as they have a strong and diverse base of software.