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

Forums - Gaming - Who is making the right decision? Microsoft or Nintendo?

 

Who is making the right choice?

Microsoft 129 40.31%
 
Nintendo 191 59.69%
 
Total:320
Mr Khan said:
Soundwave said:

I'm beginning to think Nintendo is borderline retarded when it comes to making in-generation adjustments when a console is starting to go south. They're like the Titanic trying to navigate past an iceberg ... completely unable to react. They generally need to fail so hard in a generation and then take a few years to figure out what they did wrong.

They did the same thing with the N64, wasting their time developing the 64DD for years rather than giving the system a real mass storage alternative to cartridges. Only during the next generation did they accept they had to use optical media.

With the GameCube they should've offered an official DVD-playing model that didn't look like a Fisher Price toy, but only had the Panasonic Q which was available in Japan in tiny quantities and nothing else. Instead of getting their feet wet with online play they stubbornly pushed the GBA-GCN link option which was an extremely niche idea that didn't take off at all. 

I'll give Microsoft credit ... at least they are getting feedback from consumers and actually acting on it, they changed a lot of things that people reacted negatively to pre-launch and now are offering consumers the version of the XB1 that many want.

That humbled attitude will I think let MS taste some degree of success this generation if they stick to it. Nintendo is likely going to only taste what it feels like to have a lower selling console than the GameCube this generation.

It's a cultural thing. American companies care a lot less about saving face and more about getting results, so while companies are sometimes stubborn about product lines or features that they should have cut due to the ego of some higher executive, they'll usually cut or change what needs cut or changed (and more importantly, are far more willing to oust the ego-driven executive who was resistant to such changes).

Japanese companies, as seen in Sony's case, see their core businesses as a point of pride and feel that abandoning them wholly in the face of setbacks is fundamentally undesirable. Sony can see that in clinging to their TV business, which was the heart and soul of the company at one point and thus dragging their company to the brink of insolvency. Similarly, it's hard to get rid of executives with bad ideas (though they can always be booted upstairs, as happened with Ken Kutaragi or, sadly, Gunpei Yokoi), and more pretense is made on "tweaking" a bad idea rather than scrapping it outright.

The advantage for Japanese companies is that their products tend to come off as more organic and natural, so when they get a product right, they get it *right*. Western successes tend to be blander and focus-tested.


You're probably spot on with that. Hate to say it but it reminds me of Tepco and how they handled the nuclear disaster in Fukushima; more concerned with saving face than actually getting results. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Mr Khan said:

It's a cultural thing. American companies care a lot less about saving face and more about getting results, so while companies are sometimes stubborn about product lines or features that they should have cut due to the ego of some higher executive, they'll usually cut or change what needs cut or changed (and more importantly, are far more willing to oust the ego-driven executive who was resistant to such changes).

Japanese companies, as seen in Sony's case, see their core businesses as a point of pride and feel that abandoning them wholly in the face of setbacks is fundamentally undesirable. Sony can see that in clinging to their TV business, which was the heart and soul of the company at one point and thus dragging their company to the brink of insolvency. Similarly, it's hard to get rid of executives with bad ideas (though they can always be booted upstairs, as happened with Ken Kutaragi or, sadly, Gunpei Yokoi), and more pretense is made on "tweaking" a bad idea rather than scrapping it outright.

The advantage for Japanese companies is that their products tend to come off as more organic and natural, so when they get a product right, they get it *right*. Western successes tend to be blander and focus-tested.


You're probably spot on with that. Hate to say it but it reminds me of Tepco and how they handled the nuclear disaster in Fukushima; more concerned with saving face than actually getting results. 

That was indeed the very dark side of Japanese corporate philosophy laid bare for the whole world to see. It's a real crapshoot: when Japanese companies are prepared for a contingency, they rise to the occasion and do so admirably. When things spin out of control, you've got a real mess on your hands.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

MS. Unless they have some long term plan to utilize the dual screen design on home consoles, they should drop it. Mario Kart 8 gave them the perfect occasion to make a bundle, drop the gamepad and price-cut.
They could still sell the gamepad separately with a NintendoLand free download code.



zippy said:
spemanig said:
zippy said:
spemanig said:
zippy said:
spemanig said:
gergroy said:
I dont really see how nintendo could ditch the gamepad at this point. It is pretty much the ome thing the wii u has going for it...


No dude. It's the one thing the Wii u has going against it.

If the proposed NFC figures go insanely popular, the gamepad will suddenly become a masterstroke.


So make a redesigned pro controller with NFC. Or do the same thing the 3DS is doing and release a periferal.

Why have unnecessary peripherals cluttering up the place, when you can consolidate it into one controller. The gamepad is the swiss army knife of gaming, it has tradtional analogue sticks and buttons etc, touchscreen interface, operates the tv, NFC functions, double up as a standard tablet for browsing etc, off tv play and movie streaming. So much better than a shitty joypad or pro controller, but thats my opinion.


It doesn't matter what your opinion is. If your opinion mattered, the Wii U would be in the lead right now. The only opinions that matter are the opinions of every single person who will never buy a Wii U because its unwanted "swiss army knive" is making the console $100 too expensive.

My opinion is as valid as theirs and yours for that matter!!, and believe it or not there are plenty of others that think the gamepad is a very good controller. Wii U is still the cheapest console on the market, even with the gamepad, but that doesnt stop other people buying a more expensive system with very few games. The gamepad is not Wii Us problem or its price, its perception.


Nope, it's the gamepad, the name, and the power. The only thing they can change is the gamepad, so they need to drop it.



Mr Khan said:
Soundwave said:

I'm beginning to think Nintendo is borderline retarded when it comes to making in-generation adjustments when a console is starting to go south. They're like the Titanic trying to navigate past an iceberg ... completely unable to react. They generally need to fail so hard in a generation and then take a few years to figure out what they did wrong.

They did the same thing with the N64, wasting their time developing the 64DD for years rather than giving the system a real mass storage alternative to cartridges. Only during the next generation did they accept they had to use optical media.

With the GameCube they should've offered an official DVD-playing model that didn't look like a Fisher Price toy, but only had the Panasonic Q which was available in Japan in tiny quantities and nothing else. Instead of getting their feet wet with online play they stubbornly pushed the GBA-GCN link option which was an extremely niche idea that didn't take off at all. 

I'll give Microsoft credit ... at least they are getting feedback from consumers and actually acting on it, they changed a lot of things that people reacted negatively to pre-launch and now are offering consumers the version of the XB1 that many want.

That humbled attitude will I think let MS taste some degree of success this generation if they stick to it. Nintendo is likely going to only taste what it feels like to have a lower selling console than the GameCube this generation.

It's a cultural thing. American companies care a lot less about saving face and more about getting results, so while companies are sometimes stubborn about product lines or features that they should have cut due to the ego of some higher executive, they'll usually cut or change what needs cut or changed (and more importantly, are far more willing to oust the ego-driven executive who was resistant to such changes).

Japanese companies, as seen in Sony's case, see their core businesses as a point of pride and feel that abandoning them wholly in the face of setbacks is fundamentally undesirable. Sony can see that in clinging to their TV business, which was the heart and soul of the company at one point and thus dragging their company to the brink of insolvency. Similarly, it's hard to get rid of executives with bad ideas (though they can always be booted upstairs, as happened with Ken Kutaragi or, sadly, Gunpei Yokoi), and more pretense is made on "tweaking" a bad idea rather than scrapping it outright.

The advantage for Japanese companies is that their products tend to come off as more organic and natural, so when they get a product right, they get it *right*. Western successes tend to be blander and focus-tested.

This is a very good take on it, I don't think people realize just how differently we conduct business and recruit management in the West compared to a country like Japan. Quite similar to my take on it in this post:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6302453



Around the Network
_crazy_man_ said:

Why not both? (In this case I didn't vote)

Microsoft is smart for dropping an optional feature that has few applications.

Nintendo is smart for not abandoning the core aspect of their system that sets it apart from the other systems.

 


And you nailed it with the logical third option that the poll author didn't consider.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.