By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Nintendo is failing and will likely replace both of their consoles earlier than expected.

Tagged games:

superchunk on 16 January 2013
green_sky said:
Literally everyone has some sort of device that does multimedia features better than consoles would do in foreseeable future. I don't get this obsession with wanting 10 devices that you can use for Netflix, Facebook and Twitter.

It's nice to have some of those features but people buy the consoles for games.

The general consumer doesnt' get the obsession with it either, which is why the gaming console is the perfect all-in-one device.

Also, no, core gamers buy consoles for games. Everyone else will buy them for their total capability.



Around the Network
Solid-Stark on 16 January 2013

Perhaps I can agree to some degree.

But if the Vita was a phone, I wouldn't have bought one.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

green_sky on 16 January 2013
superchunk said:
green_sky said:
Literally everyone has some sort of device that does multimedia features better than consoles would do in foreseeable future. I don't get this obsession with wanting 10 devices that you can use for Netflix, Facebook and Twitter.

It's nice to have some of those features but people buy the consoles for games.

The general consumer doesnt' get the obsession with it either, which is why the gaming console is the perfect all-in-one device.

Also, no, core gamers buy consoles for games. Everyone else will buy them for their total capability.

I am not trying to be rude in any way but can you list what other capabilities are we talking here. 



superchunk on 16 January 2013
Solid-Stark said:

Perhaps I can agree to some degree.

But if the Vita was a phone, I wouldn't have bought one.

Do you own a smartphone?

Assuming yes... if Vita had the same power, same controls, same games, plus all smartphone capability (lets assume based on Android)...

You wouldn't have considered buying it at $199 on contract and potentially $99 on contract when on sale?

I think not only would have well over 90% of those that currently own it, but a much larger mass of other consumers.

But that's a different thread I've already done a year ago.



superchunk on 16 January 2013
green_sky said:
superchunk said:
green_sky said:
Literally everyone has some sort of device that does multimedia features better than consoles would do in foreseeable future. I don't get this obsession with wanting 10 devices that you can use for Netflix, Facebook and Twitter.

It's nice to have some of those features but people buy the consoles for games.

The general consumer doesnt' get the obsession with it either, which is why the gaming console is the perfect all-in-one device.

Also, no, core gamers buy consoles for games. Everyone else will buy them for their total capability.

I am not trying to be rude in any way but can you list what other capabilities are we talking here. 

Anything your smartphone can do... or PC.. or what MS and Apple and Google are already doing with their Live and AppStore and Chrome/Play Market.



Around the Network
Solid-Stark on 16 January 2013
superchunk said:
Solid-Stark said:

Perhaps I can agree to some degree.

But if the Vita was a phone, I wouldn't have bought one.

Do you own a smartphone?

Assuming yes... if Vita had the same power, same controls, same games, plus all smartphone capability (lets assume based on Android)...

You wouldn't have considered buying it at $199 on contract and potentially $99 on contract when on sale?

I think not only would have well over 90% of those that currently own it, but a much larger mass of other consumers.

But that's a different thread I've already done a year ago.


Yes I do own a smartphone.

The Vita would have been too big for my convenience to use as a smartphone. And no, I will never be under contract with my phones.

I use my Vita and 3DS for portable gaming (although rarely used outside my home), and I take my phone and half the time, my tablet, with me when I leave the house. All for their own respective uses. Particularly my point, I paid what I paid for the 3DS and Vita because I knew they were for the most part dedicated gaming consoles and that's what they are used for. The Netflix app? Rarely used.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Solid-Stark on 16 January 2013

Forgot to add. I'm sure I represent a large consensus of the 3DS/Vita purchasers.

And of course I'm specifically discussing handhelds.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

burninmylight on 16 January 2013
superchunk said:
green_sky said:
Literally everyone has some sort of device that does multimedia features better than consoles would do in foreseeable future. I don't get this obsession with wanting 10 devices that you can use for Netflix, Facebook and Twitter.

It's nice to have some of those features but people buy the consoles for games.

The general consumer doesnt' get the obsession with it either, which is why the gaming console is the perfect all-in-one device.

Also, no, core gamers buy consoles for games. Everyone else will buy them for their total capability.


My experience with everyone who isn't a "core" or "hardcore" gamer is that they aren't even aware of those extra capabilities. A ton of people who bought the Wii for Wii Sports and other Blue Ocean titles didn't even know it could go online, or whether it could play DVDs, or that it had Netflix, or that they could download virtual console and WiiWare games, or play GameCube games. Heck Nintendo made that dumbed-down red Wii just for those folks.

When my girlfriend bought a 360 for Need For Speed a couple of years ago, she had no idea of all its capabilities; she bought a $400 console just to be able to pay an extra $60 to play one game! Although she took advantage of the media player and the ability to save music to the hard drive, once she tired of NFS, the console just sat and collected dust til she gave it away to her brother. I'm not saying she's representative of every "casual" or "non-core" consumer, but I'd say she falls firmly in line of normal behavior.



Roma on 16 January 2013

didn't read the wall of text but going by the title of the OP

3DS is doing amazing and will do amazinger...er later in the year with Pokemon, MH4 and DQ7(i think)

It's too early to say what will happen with WiiU but yeah it's doing bad, kind of feels like the Zelda SS of consoles...



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

burninmylight on 16 January 2013
superchunk said:
burninmylight said:
superchunk said:
burninmylight said:
superchunk said:
Wander_ said:
Way too early. When the WiiU is 6 years old than we can call it a failure.


CORRECTION! I never said WiiU or 3DS would be failures. Just shorter than expected lives. They will still be highly profitable for Nitnendo and provide quality gaming experiences.

Then could you clarify what you meant by "Nintendo is failing" in the title?

That says "nintendo" as in the company as a whole, not just their individual products. THey'll still be profitable, just in a diminishing manner.

But does that necessarily mean it's failing though? Does a company have to outdo itself with each new iteration of a product? If that's the case, Ninteno was failing from 1990-2006.

Yes. If they continue to reduce in market and sales, they eventually go away. Nintendo was not failing from 1990-2006 as their handheld business continued to grow. Now all of their platforms are in a diminishing market of strictly dedicated gaming.


Ah, how could I forget to include the handheld division? You got me on that one. But I still don't believe that the lack of multimedia functionality is what would force Nintendo into replacing their current consoles earlier than normal. Consumers, no matter how you label them, still buy consoles for games first and foremost by a longshot.