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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Is There Like Zero Attention About the 3DS Successor?

Frogger on 26 January 2016
Soundwave said:
I think where you're wrong is saying they're not a replacement for handhelds. They are. They get the job done for most people and they have a killer draw that Nintendo can't ever match -- free games. Thousands and thousands of them. Backed by monster marketing budgets that Nintendo can't come close to. 

Lots of kids these days don't even know Nintendo's version of "every kid should have a Game Boy/DS" ... they're not raised in that culture at all, they have a tablet placed into their hands by age 2/3, they laugh when I tell them Game Boy was the cool thing when I was a kid. This generation has no frame of reference, this is normal to them. 

This is like when people said Netflix is not a replacement for Blockbuster Video and traditional rental stores. After all, you can't rent all the New Releases with Netflix, it's just mostly older catalog movies. 

But Netflix did pretty quickly destroy the Blockbuster model. It was far more convienant, and even if people weren't getting the big gun movies, the overall selection you can get on Netflix trumped the old model. 

For the record, I kinda miss Blockbuster/physical rental stores, but what can you do. 

They definitely are not. They don't attract the same market at all.

And of course they laughed. The gameboy is old tech literally.

It's not at all like that. Netflix plays the same movies at a better resolutions without needing to wait for anything and it's completely on demand 24/7. It is literally an objective improvement in literally every way. People who said it wasn't replacing blockbuster were morons. Mobile games are literally different games with different input methods and a different design phylosophy. It's like saying a television episode is the same as a movie. It's not.

I don't miss inferiority at all.



Around the Network
Frogger on 26 January 2016
Soundwave said:

Reality: Most parents are exhausted most of the time and struggling to pay their rent, car payments, and groceries, let alone buy their kids that new XBox they want and that trip to Disney they want and the soccer fees they have to pay. Most parents can't remember the last time they had sex with their significant other and many would trade sex for a full 8 hours of good sleep. 

If plopping their kid in front of their phone/tablet is a cheap/free way to get their child to shut up for a damn 15 minutes ... that's nirvana to most parents. lol. 

Parents don't give a shit about what games their kids play so long as its not a game about killing hookers. And if phones/tablets can do that for free/$1 versus $40 that Nintendo's asking for ... that just seals the deal. Parents these days have a lot more to worry about than whether their kid is playing Mario or Angry Birds. 


Those parents would have never gotten their kids a handheld in the first place, meaning they're a non-factor. It was never a decision between a handheld and a phone. It was between nothing and a phone.



Soundwave on 26 January 2016
spemanig said:
Soundwave said:
I think where you're wrong is saying they're not a replacement for handhelds. They are. They get the job done for most people and they have a killer draw that Nintendo can't ever match -- free games. Thousands and thousands of them. Backed by monster marketing budgets that Nintendo can't come close to. 

Lots of kids these days don't even know Nintendo's version of "every kid should have a Game Boy/DS" ... they're not raised in that culture at all, they have a tablet placed into their hands by age 2/3, they laugh when I tell them Game Boy was the cool thing when I was a kid. This generation has no frame of reference, this is normal to them. 

This is like when people said Netflix is not a replacement for Blockbuster Video and traditional rental stores. After all, you can't rent all the New Releases with Netflix, it's just mostly older catalog movies. 

But Netflix did pretty quickly destroy the Blockbuster model. It was far more convienant, and even if people weren't getting the big gun movies, the overall selection you can get on Netflix trumped the old model. 

For the record, I kinda miss Blockbuster/physical rental stores, but what can you do. 

They definitely are not. They don't attract the same market at all.

And of course they laughed. The gameboy is old tech literally.

It's not at all like that. Netflix plays the same movies at a better resolutions without needing to wait for anything and it's completely on demand 24/7. It is literally an objective improvement in literally every way. People who said it wasn't replacing blockbuster were morons. Mobile games are literally different games with different input methods and a different design phylosophy. It's like saying a television episode is the same as a movie. It's not.

I don't miss inferiority at all.

 

I guess the most pertinent question is does anyone really need to play "deep" games with physical controls on the go? I mean who are these people that have time to sit around for hours on end. The thing is a lot of people don't care. To be honest they generally want simpler games on the go. Getting too deeply involved in a game outside of the house is not a positive because there are things happening around you in the real world that require attention too. 

Netflix still doesn't get a lot of the "big" new release movies, that was always the bread and butter of the rental market before, people always said Blockbuster couldn't be abandoned because people would still want to rent the Jurassic Parks, Avengers, etc. but it turns out this thinking was wrong. 



Gamemaster87 on 26 January 2016

Well, I expect it to launch this year.



Soundwave on 26 January 2016
spemanig said:
Soundwave said:

Reality: Most parents are exhausted most of the time and struggling to pay their rent, car payments, and groceries, let alone buy their kids that new XBox they want and that trip to Disney they want and the soccer fees they have to pay. Most parents can't remember the last time they had sex with their significant other and many would trade sex for a full 8 hours of good sleep. 

If plopping their kid in front of their phone/tablet is a cheap/free way to get their child to shut up for a damn 15 minutes ... that's nirvana to most parents. lol. 

Parents don't give a shit about what games their kids play so long as its not a game about killing hookers. And if phones/tablets can do that for free/$1 versus $40 that Nintendo's asking for ... that just seals the deal. Parents these days have a lot more to worry about than whether their kid is playing Mario or Angry Birds. 


Those parents would have never gotten their kids a handheld in the first place, meaning they're a non-factor. It was never a decision between a handheld and a phone. It was between nothing and a phone.

 

10 years ago it was the norm. You bought the kid a Game Boy/DS because really in the past there wasn't a whole lot to entertain the child on the go. 

It was like a right of passage, kids get certain things, especially boys ... a bike is one of them, Game Boy/DS had become like another, curl-6 is correct that tablets/phones have hijacked an entire generation away from Nintendo. 



Around the Network
curl-6 on 26 January 2016
spemanig said:
curl-6 said:

But here's the thing though; say you're a parent. Why spend $200 on a portable and $40 per game for your kid when you can just hand them your phone and let a free or 99c app entertain them?

Because the kid asked for it probably. Most parents aren't as cheap and shallow as you're making them out to be. If Nintendo markets it well, kids will ask there parents for one, and then the parents will get it for their kids because most of the time they love them and want to see them happy.

It's not cheap and shallow to be cost-conscious; kids are easily pleased and don't need the kind of requirements of a game that an adult core gamer does. In light of this, it makes sense to let them play free apps on Mum's smartphone rather than buying another $200 piece of hardware where games are another $40 on top of that each. Most parents have no problem saying no when a kid asks for an unnecessary new toy.



zorg1000 on 26 January 2016
Soundwave said:
spemanig said:
Soundwave said:
I think where you're wrong is saying they're not a replacement for handhelds. They are. They get the job done for most people and they have a killer draw that Nintendo can't ever match -- free games. Thousands and thousands of them. Backed by monster marketing budgets that Nintendo can't come close to. 

Lots of kids these days don't even know Nintendo's version of "every kid should have a Game Boy/DS" ... they're not raised in that culture at all, they have a tablet placed into their hands by age 2/3, they laugh when I tell them Game Boy was the cool thing when I was a kid. This generation has no frame of reference, this is normal to them. 

This is like when people said Netflix is not a replacement for Blockbuster Video and traditional rental stores. After all, you can't rent all the New Releases with Netflix, it's just mostly older catalog movies. 

But Netflix did pretty quickly destroy the Blockbuster model. It was far more convienant, and even if people weren't getting the big gun movies, the overall selection you can get on Netflix trumped the old model. 

For the record, I kinda miss Blockbuster/physical rental stores, but what can you do. 

They definitely are not. They don't attract the same market at all.

And of course they laughed. The gameboy is old tech literally.

It's not at all like that. Netflix plays the same movies at a better resolutions without needing to wait for anything and it's completely on demand 24/7. It is literally an objective improvement in literally every way. People who said it wasn't replacing blockbuster were morons. Mobile games are literally different games with different input methods and a different design phylosophy. It's like saying a television episode is the same as a movie. It's not.

I don't miss inferiority at all.

 

I guess the most pertinent question is does anyone really need to play "deep" games with physical controls on the go? I mean who are these people that have time to sit around for hours on end. The thing is a lot of people don't care. To be honest they generally want simpler games on the go. Getting too deeply involved in a game outside of the house is not a positive because there are things happening around you in the real world that require attention too. 

Netflix still doesn't get a lot of the "big" new release movies, that was always the bread and butter of the rental market before, people always said Blockbuster couldn't be abandoned because people would still want to rent the Jurassic Parks, Avengers, etc. but it turns out this thinking was wrong. 

 

People still rent new movies all the time, it's called redbox.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Dante9 on 26 January 2016
spemanig said:
Soundwave said:

"Different" doesn't mean better though. Yes we all know dedicated game handhelds are better for traditional games. 

But by the same token I think it's fair to say, mobile games do a good enough job at entertaining, and are honestly far easier to pick and play most of the time, which is good for casual players and young children. Anyone can understand touch. 

If people want to play deep games, I think honestly these days that's what the home console is for. You have your 50 inch HDTV sitting at home with your $300-$400 console, people would rather just leave that type of gaming itch to the big boy console. 

The smartphone/tablet takes care of the portable side of things. 

We underestimate how much the tablet has changed domestic life too, like I said kids have a tablet or phone flung into their face before they can walk these days. It's not just games either, I know a lot of kids that basically watch all their cartoons on the tablet too. 

I never said different meant better. That's not the point I was trying to make.

Like I said, I like mobile games. I have no problem with mobile games, but they are not a replacement for handhelds. Not because they are worse. They are not worse. Some are better. That's not what I'm getting at. They are literally designed differently mechanically. They do not have the same skeleton. That's the point I'm trying to make. Your traditional games comparison is what I'm on about. When you say "traditional/deep games," I'm saying "handheld and console games." 

Mobile games do an amazing job at what they do. But they are not this evolution of the handheld. They are a different beast. It isn't "gaming on the go." It's its own brand of games, biologically different from handheld games.

If people want to play "deep games," thats what handhelds and consoles are for. Handhelds are for playing "deep games" on the go. Phones are for playing mobile games. It has nothing to do with the "portable side of things." It's the games and the platform. Want mobile games? Play on your iphone. Want traditional games on the go? People buy handhelds for that. Still. There is a market, it is still large, and I think it will get much larger with the NXDS when the platform is finally as modern as its tech peers, something neither the 3DS nor the Vita were. Not talking about power. I'm talking about firmware and UI.

 You're too close to your favorite handheld to see this. Let it go, man.

The truth is that handheld gaming has gone mobile. There's no going back, at least not in the west.

If you game on the go, you're not going to game for hours on end. Your phone is all you need for that short stint and you'll have your phone with you anyways, no matter where you go. On the other hand, if you're the kind of gamer that puts in some serious game time, you do it on a home console or a PC. Online shooters are also a big part of the latter and that's just not feasible on handheld devices.

Your argument that handheld games are different from mobile games doesn't really come into it at all. This is how the market works now.





Wyrdness on 26 January 2016
curl-6 said:

He's right though. 

Nintendo's decision making over the last five years has been so utterly terrible that your average forum going gamer probably could have done a better job. For one thing, we're not as completely out of touch with today's gaming market as Nintendo seems to be.

 

No they wouldn't otherwise they wouldn't be posting on a forum, that's egotistical thinking at it's highest, you lot on a forum for a start have little vision of the whole picture in running a business and think a company can just do this and that. The fact that you think someone posting on a forum can do the job is quite frankly beyond laughable.



Nem on 26 January 2016

Everyone already decided that nintendo only cares about the home console market. NX will be a home console the portable will disappear and *whoosh!* Profit!

You already know what i think. Its great fantasy. xD

Seriously though, Nintendo is looking at a new portable release before a new home console. The NX has a high possibility of beeing a portable device aswell.