Because of his very flawed statement, the "blue ocean is won, no need to target it anymore." That a very FLAWED statement to say the least. Anyone that believes the market has been maxed out, needs their head examined. That completely discredits anything he has to say in this regard.

@bold. Exactly, and I think that's what happened with TP. But the fans do want Nintendo to get the skill back, as OoT, Super Metroid and other fundamental Nintendo IPs had that at some point in the history of Nintendo, and I believe that would be highly invaluable to them on the long run.

However, I also agree that it is currently out of their skills, like as if they lost it. That's why I proposed an R&D approach to the idea, and also mentioned that they should start with minimalistic projects in the spirit of SotC, which for example has no minions and has lots of open spaces, which add to the silent ambiance of the game, yet would keep the costs minimal.

There was nothing wrong with Twilight Princess, and it's the best-selling Zelda for a reason.

I loved the game, but it had a lot of poor design choices when it comes to music in general imho. My opinion is that TP tried to go darker themed, and was an awkard attempt at times, at other times it was dead on.

Let's agree to disagree, as this is a matter of taste. I find vgchartz a difficult place to discuss this kind of thing, so unless you want to talk TP design choices, we might want to agree to disagree.

@bold. Not in this case. There are ways to explain it. It's not a rule, it's a possibility, and in many cases it fits with the discrepancy we see between the sales of titles like Wii Play and XC (as an example).

I answered the prestige question by asking more questions, but I'm not sure you want to construct ideas anymore.

Phenom doesn't understand but theres a reason Sony has 60 million+ consoles and will get over 80 million in the long run. Its obviously a well balanced list of games, blu ray and more going from first party to third (which was a huge list). This is a number Nintendo would've never been able to reach unless they were in second place, but third? No. Sony kept Nintendo under forty million in sales for two generations as they expanded the market. Its amazing that Sony has sold sixty-six million. That is obviously apart of Sonys ability to expand the market. Nintendo expanded the market further into higher casualization which is why disparity between the core and casual is was way larger on the Wii than the PSX or PS2. Having certain titles sends a message to people. The Wii U is quickly baiting me in as a consumer, but what Happy is saying couldn't hurt. A lot of people left Nintendo during the N64 era because of the quality of games on Sonys console in its first generation. Of course I had both but Sony had my attention 70% of the time while owning both. With games like Bayonetta and Zombie U I am quickly falling for Nintendos offer (plus the fact that I can add a TB to the HDD). Im not saying Nintendos console will be my primary console (it obviously won) but I think I'll give it a chance this time around having more mature games that I like to play around. I wouldnt hurt to play an HD Zelda to boot.

My first thought is prestige makes consoles sell better on the long run (increased total HW sales, and in turn increased total SW sales), and ensure a certain userbase (mostly the one that was supporting the PSX, PS2, N64 and GC),  but I'm not sure how to quantify that sentiment or support it with numbers.

I believe what Nintendo has to gain in the long run from such games is a boost in total HW sales, a boost in total SW sales (for HW-affected games like MK), a better representation within the community, a stronger presence within the industry, more weight to their needs and decisions, and more popularity, leading to a more robust brand and a stronger image.

I'm not sure SW sales are the proper indicator of the success of a prestige game, as these rarely sell over 1M, except in a very small handful of cases.

So, I asked a series of questions that anyone is free to answer, this is a thread that is meant to encourage intelligent debate. This far you have provided much more than I expected and I am content, but anyone is free to pick up the questions I'm asking. Perhaps I will begin a new thread to answer the deeper questions.

I'll try to answer these:

How to define the level of prestige of a game?

I believe the level of prestige in a game is a subjective measure that can be judged by a reliable community of people who have taken the time to understand the matter, and should be relied on based on their track record. Sadly I'm not sure this exists for games, though I believe it exists for movies (I'm not sure).

How to define the impact of a game on total HW and SW sales, and as such profit, and especially how over a longer period of time.

I believe this is a very difficult task, and is nearly impossible. We know that the Playstation and the Playstation 2 strived on multiple sales of smaller games like Xenogears, Chrono Chross, and say Suikoden or Star Ocean.

Maybe the lead would look at the number of small-seller that are considered AAA per system and compare it to the evergreen (make a ratio), and then compare that value to the total HW sales of the system in study.

(I am not sure I'm on the constructive path so I will wait for feedback before continuing.)

I can see the argument on the other side I guess if you assume that Nintendo would have to use their current teams to make a game like SotC and couldn't just throw money at a new team, but even with that said the counter is that Nintendo has one of the best selections of retail titles anyway so the difference wouldn't be noticeable if it won over anyone.

So how about this suggestion then? Nintendo should throw some money at a tiny team for 3 or 4 downloadable titles like Sony has done with ThatGameCompany and more recently Giant Sparrow. This could greatly help out their downloadable service which is easily the worst of the three when it comes to original content, and would be something they could just throw money at and some development device, doesn't have to take away from what they're already doing.

These smaller games have a lot of the same qualities that made Team Ico's games so unique, so that's why I thought of it.

Happy, if you look at the sales its about similar to last gen as well. Except Nintendo couldn't reach the market dominance that Sony had. Its obvious that their offerings lead to a more properly populated group of installed base with every type of gamer. They need to build a unified image that they are for the core as well as the casuals and they will bring. The Wii U is finally sending that message but of course the third party is doing all the work for Nintendo while they do the same thing. I would definitely like to see Nintendo touch a more new mature title (Dont say metroid anyone, I swear to god) that could expand their brand image because whether people like it or not they are still Disney.

I couldn't agree more. If you're buying the console saying "they are offering me the core games I want", but the manufacturer themselves aren't participating, it does lead to doubt and scepticism in the adopter. It may be correct or not, as the U will have core exclusives like DQ, MH, Bayo, ZombiU, Raymans, but the hope one has to keep is that this trend should continue.

You would ask yourself "why shouldn't it continue?", but at the same time it would inspire much more confidence if Nintendo actually participated, and with the fact that they actually have the IPs to support it (Metroid >:--), and Zelda), as well as the option of making a whole new IP to try the flavor Tor was mentioning, there is room for it.