RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:
The counter point is in an environment where every major platform has more good games than any person with a life could reasonably play, quality in and of itself is not the main arbiter of platform success any longer.
This is not the 80-early 90s anymore when there was literally only 1 or 2 platforms with more than 10 good games on them.
|
Well, your counter-point isn't true. And even if it were, it would still mean that a platform just needs the best games to continue to exist. So if Nintendo has them (and Pokémon, Mario, Zelda etc. make a pretty good case), then the reason why handhelds could die would be that Nintendo continues to mess up the hardware itself, not any outside force.
|
How is not true?
What person has the time to play every single good game on the XBox 360 for example? And still have some semblance of a social life?
Read: You ain't gaming that much if you got a girlfriend/significant other right off the bat. If you're married/have kids ... ha ... good luck.
Nintendo has some great games.
But that's becomes a "so what?" to the average consumer. Everybody has some great games. There's Last of Us over here and Halo over there and Minecraft over here and gotta have Madden and FIFA to play with the boys when they come over.
That's just how the general gamer thinks. So what if Splatoon is the best game of 2015? That's not going to sway someone to buy a Wii U alone.
People look at a platform now as an overall investment for 5 years. Is it going to have all/most of the games I want to play? Does my friend own said console so I can play with him/her online? Does this machine fit my lifestyle? Do I want to paying $40 for a handheld game when I only realistically can play maybe 15-20 minutes a day outside of my house? Etc. etc.