Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all. |
Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:
1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.
2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.
3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.
|
Think man...think. Do you really think Nintendo's console would've profited as console at the rate they are going if it was as powerful as the PS4? It would've taken them much longer. The Wii U is borderline last gen tech. Its profitable and Nintendo reaped the benefits by staying true to their normal policies of making profits off of cheaper hardware. There is no bitterness in this. I've just learned to accept Nintendo as they are. I used to defend them from people I saw as haters, but once I educated myself I realized more often than not what they get is definitely what they deserve for better or for worse.
1) No. The Wii U was borderline last gen tech...they haven't been on the forefront of power since the 90's.
2) Of course Sony takes more risk with hardware with Nintendo, which is why they tend to take more losses Nintendo and its been this way since the beginning. I am talking about costliness of the product and parts involved. Nintendo is a wiz when creating the cheapest console possible to produce. This is how they survived the Gamecube generation. Its all about profitability. Despite having better graphics than the PS2 the PS2 had the Disc format that was sellings slowly at the time and Sony provided it and lowered its market price making it affordable for all. Microsoft followed suit soon after and the same goes for Blu Ray. Sony is the game changer when it comes to formats. There are a lot of companies that depend on their control over formats in the gaming industry especially since they spearhead it most of the time anyway.
3) Being a year behind does matter, because Sony had to make a profit off of the hardware and break even on the R&D before they can pull in more profit.
So again...Nintendo isn't doomed because Nintendo always plays it smart when it comes to developing a console they can quickly profit off of.
|
1) Gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation and was launced in this century so your 90s argument is debunked. Anyway being cheap is different from being powerful. You said (quote "cheap as always"), you weren't talking about powerfulness, but price. And for that matter, Nintendo, aside from Wii which was pretty cheap to make, all other Nintendo consoles go toe-to-toe with their competitios, and that is a fact. Even Wii U costs a lot with its "weak" hardware inside, it has a controller expensive as hell. For reference wasn't WiiU sold at like 300 or 350$ at a cost when it 1st came out? And PS4 at 400$ with a profit? Well, that narrows the margin a little bit.
2) Well that's not taking risks. That's simple bad management/planning. So PS4 comes with outdated hardware for its time, is sold at a loss, and relies only on better graphics over its predecessor. Nintendo comes with even weaker hardware, sells at a cost, introduces a gamepad, which is new o gaming consoles, and you argue Sony takes the higher risk? Okeeeyyy...
Btw, Sony takes more losses because, like it has already been said in this thread, Sony's startegy relies on lots and lots of expending money outside of games and console development, like marketing, buying exclusive deals, most out of the money they make on games goes to 3rd parties, etc... Nintendo approach is completely different, reling heavily on their develoment teams and they sell mainly their own games. Sony's startegy needs tons of sales too be profitabe for the company, Nintendo's not so much.
3) I wont even try to explain to you why this is so wrong when talking about quarterly results...
|
