RolStoppable said:
1. A controller standard for the PC is only a matter of demand. If game developers decided that they want to games for controllers rather than mouse and keyboard, then it wouldn't be too difficult to encourage companies (for example, Microsoft) to introduce a standard. And yes, the PC scene was big in the '90s; when you look at today's console games, many of these series originated on the PC; Call of Duty and The Elder Scrolls, plus developers like Bioware (Baldur's Gate, KotoR) were drawn to consoles; much of what you see today comes from former PC game developers. But no, that doesn't mean that the "mature" crowd was on the PC in the early '90s; they were on consoles. The way that business works for Nintendo's competitors in the console space is that Nintendo brings in gamers and Nintendo's competition then starts to talk about maturity and all that fluff to lure people away from Nintendo. It's for that reason that Sony has gone on record to state that it's bad if Nintendo isn't doing well, because Nintendo is the pipeline from which they draw. Of course they didn't say it this blatantly, but that's how it works.
Then why did these PC developers suddenly start making console games? Could it maybe be because the demand was there? Could it actually be the case that people to a pretty large extent PREFER to game on consoles and big TV's and not wanting to bother getting "geeky" with PC and smaller screens? There's a pretty clear case to be made that a lot of gamers wouldn't game if they only had access to PC. So you're more or less saying that in the early 90's the "mature" gamers were on Sega? And could that perhaps be because they (at least potrayed to have) had bloodier games? Just compare the two versions of Mortal Kombat.
2. "Family friendly" doesn't have negative connotations, that's why other words are used to describe Nintendo.
3. It can't be successfully countered because Sony and Microsoft would just up the ante of their PR work, if Nintendo did what you suggested.
Nintendo would just have to be smarter
4. That's up to Nintendo. Iwata has already said that NX will be such a platform. What's being said about "casuals" is that they are fickle and unpredictable; which means that nobody can't rule out that they'll buy Nintendo products. The Wii U is Nintendo's attempt at a PlayStation (the second after the GameCube), hence why multiplatform games were the big focus when the console was unveiled; hence why Sony and Microsoft's PR could work; hence why nobody buys it for a different experience, because there is no different experience. I addressed why Nintendo fans aren't buying earlier in my previous post, the Wii U is too expensive.
The Wii U is NOT an attempt of a PS like Nintendo console. The Wii U don't KNOW what it wanna be. It has a lot of casual games, and not enough core games to be a true attempt to take the PS crowd. It launched with a few old ports and an exclusive 3rd party mature game, but Nintendo did NOTHING to enhance that image of maturity. Yes, they talked the talk, but they didn't walk the walk. What more adult/mature title did THEY offer at launch? I wouldn't say that a 2D Mario is something the CoD crowd would find appealing. It was even called the platform console a while, because all Nintendo did for it was platformers. Does W101 look like a game GTA players would find interesting? No. Even Nintendo's 3D mario, 3D World, has a pretty clear "casual" vibe to it. Mario Galaxy looks a lot more "core". So don't try and paint the Wii U as Nintendo's attempt of a PS. And I'm not sure the GC was such an atempt either; just take a look at Zelda WW and Mario Sunshine. NOT anything that would appeal to the PS crowd. If this is Nintendo's PS attempts, then it's VERY clear that Nintendo doesn't know anything about that crowd. The Wii U is a VERY different experience than PS4, and that's why it's failing; it's underpowered and can't therefore pull of the same graphics (and we both know graphics have become important to gamers), it has a touchscreen controller (we both know gamers don't want knew control inputs), they don't have ANY games in common since Nintendo does what Nintendo does and doesn't try to get any games similar to those on PS4. There is NOTHING similar about these two experiences.
If people aren't interested in console gaming, but Nintendo redefines what console gaming is, then that means that Nintendo's console gaming isn't the same as existing products, so the disinterest in traditional console gaming doesn't necessarily apply to the new definition of console gaming. It isn't easy to redefine console gaming, but it only needs to be redefined if there are competitors that make current console gaming unprofitable for Nintendo. The beauty of the Sony/Microsoft/Third Party relationship is that it locks all of them into the definition they have chosen for themselves. Sony and Microsoft will not be able to compete with Nintendo as long as Nintendo stays its course, simply because they need third party support to beat Nintendo at their own game and they won't get it because third parties will maintain the status quo. The Wii would have continued to work, but Nintendo decided they were done with it and returned to the pre-Wii era for the design of their eighth generation console, so they merged the dual analog controller with the GBA connectivity. The Wii U is an evolution of the GameCube, and the GC was a failure. Nintendo got themselves into a horrible situation because they chose to build on failure instead of success.
I agree that if Nintendo can't attract proper 3rd party support, and make similar games themselves, their only option is to try and catch lightning in a bottle for a second time. But that's a lot easier than done. Last time the concept (of Wii) came from OUTSIDE the company. Think about that. The Wii wouldn't have happened unless someone CAME to Nintendo with the motion controls. Nintendo got LUCKY last gen. Are they capable of replicating that themselves next time around?
|
Currently Online 
