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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Should Nintendo Stop Innovating And Make A Traditional Console?

 

So, what do you think?

No, not at all. Innovatio... 122 33.42%
 
Not really, but I'd like... 92 25.21%
 
Don't know. Time will tell? 11 3.01%
 
Yeah, more less. Traditional is good. 47 12.88%
 
Absolutely. PS4 and Xbox ... 52 14.25%
 
What's "traditional" anyway? 19 5.21%
 
Show me the answers! 22 6.03%
 
Total:365
S.T.A.G.E. on 09 February 2017
Soundwave said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Nintendo could beat Microsoft if they tried. Sony is another story and a much more tedious task since Sony keeps all of their bases covered in all aspects. Microsoft is the only company of the three who is terrible at actually making games themselves. If Nintendo secured third party and made some cool new IP's that are cool for adults Microsoft would be in trouble since they can never find new IP"s to carry on what Gears and Halo started. Nintendos most stable consoles in all genres have always had stable third party (which were the first two consoles).

They could probably take Microsoft if they did everything right and got some better management in place, but the problem is they'd be forced to engage Sony head on whether they want to or not in that case and MS would also force them to spend money beyond what they want. 

I think after the early 2000s and Yamauchi realized that Microsoft wasn't going to fail massively in the game business, and seeing how MS just casually threw several billion in his face to buy Nintendo entirely ... Yamauchi changed and so did Nintendo. 

From that point on Yamauchi instructed Iwata and all his staff that they had to be different and could not compete head on as it would be suicide financially as MS could outspend Nintendo no matter what. Before that time though Yamauchi had no problem with direct competetion and was often a vicious competitor. 

Microsoft is what changed Nintendo I think, they got scared at where the industry was going and didn't want any part of that, it's like being in a poker game and seeing the money on the table getting too rich for your blood. Time to bail. 

Nintendo could definitely take on Microsoft with a traditional console. The only reason why Microsoft split Sony's former marketshare was by keeping their platform as close to what they expected Sony to make as possible and keep the console third party friendly. If Nintendo did the same and bolstered their first, second and third party exclusives Microsoft would be in for a world of hurt because the hits would just keep on coming. Its the same way Sony came back from a 10 million console deficit to Microsoft. Their exclsuives kept people interested while Microsoft was struggling to find an answer.



Around the Network
Barkley on 09 February 2017

If 1-2-Switch is the furthest that the innovations are being utilised then yes.



Soundwave on 09 February 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soundwave said:

They could probably take Microsoft if they did everything right and got some better management in place, but the problem is they'd be forced to engage Sony head on whether they want to or not in that case and MS would also force them to spend money beyond what they want. 

I think after the early 2000s and Yamauchi realized that Microsoft wasn't going to fail massively in the game business, and seeing how MS just casually threw several billion in his face to buy Nintendo entirely ... Yamauchi changed and so did Nintendo. 

From that point on Yamauchi instructed Iwata and all his staff that they had to be different and could not compete head on as it would be suicide financially as MS could outspend Nintendo no matter what. Before that time though Yamauchi had no problem with direct competetion and was often a vicious competitor. 

Microsoft is what changed Nintendo I think, they got scared at where the industry was going and didn't want any part of that, it's like being in a poker game and seeing the money on the table getting too rich for your blood. Time to bail. 

Nintendo could definitely take on Microsoft with a traditional console. The only reason why Microsoft split Sony's former marketshare was by keeping their platform as close to what they expected Sony to make as possible and keep the console third party friendly. If Nintendo did the same and bolstered their first, second and third party exclusives Microsoft would be in for a world of hurt because the hits would just keep on coming. Its the same way Sony came back from a 10 million console deficit to Microsoft. Their exclsuives kept people interested while Microsoft was struggling to find an answer.

They maybe could. They could also get their ass kicked. That's also a distinct possibility. Nintendo is too chicken shit to try either way, so here we are. 

The truth is on that, Nintendo needed to beat MS to a bloody pulp so bad with the GameCube Vs. XBox that MS never dared to come back. But instead MS got through that generation thinking "hey we're new at this, but look we're even beating Nintendo and they've been doing this for 20 years!". That gave them confidence and now that whole market segment is way too overcrowded. 

The stuff about "well maybe they should try now" ... nah, you guys are about 15 years late. This shit needed to be done 15 years ago. Today, forget it. It's like letting someone walk into your country and take over huge regions of it and thinking 15 years later they'll just hand it right back. Nuh uh. Nintendo will be taking that back right after Atari takes market share back from Nintendo for stealing their market.  



NATO on 09 February 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Nintendo could definitely take on Microsoft with a traditional console. The only reason why Microsoft split Sony's former marketshare was by keeping their platform as close to what they expected Sony to make as possible and keep the console third party friendly. If Nintendo did the same and bolstered their first, second and third party exclusives Microsoft would be in for a world of hurt because the hits would just keep on coming. Its the same way Sony came back from a 10 million console deficit to Microsoft. Their exclsuives kept people interested while Microsoft was struggling to find an answer.

Now explain why the vita outsold the wiiu, despite it being treated like an unwanted teen pregnancy by Sony for virtually it's whole life.



Soundwave on 09 February 2017
NATO said:
Hynad said:

Man, you make the case for me. You're saying it yourself. Nintendo brought forth the D-Pad and everything that came after adopted it.

It's like you don't even follow your own arguments anymore. xD


And TMNT (1989) came out long after the NES was a thing. Which gives me proof enough that you came into the 3rd gen consoles at a later age than me. Which means that your memory is that of a late 3rd gen adopter at best. So nobody should give any credit to your anecdotal "evidence".

Since it's an argument about dpads, one of the first actual single injection cross shaped 4 directional "d-pads" was on the mattel  armour battle and mattel sub shark handheld games.

This was in 1978, the input buttons themselves are all physically connected by a thin cross allowing them to flex and return to the original position.

Prior to that Atari released the Atari VCS with a joystick that used a single piece plastic base that had a central pivot to prevent input for alternate sides of the 4 button matrix at the same time, and only neighbouring buttons for diagonal input.

Both the dpads form (mattel) and function (atari) are not innovations by Nintendo, the only thing Nintendo can be credited with here is combining both the pivot and the shape together, and that, ladies and gentlemen, isn't innovation, it's simple evolution of an existing idea.

The NES wasn't even the first time I saw/used a d-pad either. That was a Game & Watch device. D-pad was around long before the NES. 

People acting like THAT was the reason that drove NES sales and that is the direct analog to the Wiimote for the Wii ... that's pure revisionist history. Anyone who really grew up in the 80s will know that was pure BS. 

I got my NES in late 1988, a bit late, but not totally late. '88-'89 was the peak shipment year for the NES in North America with a monsterous 9.3 million shipped. 



Around the Network
NATO on 09 February 2017
Soundwave said:

The NES wasn't even the first time I saw/used a d-pad either. That was a Game & Watch device. 

People acting like THAT was the reason that drove NES sales and that is the direct analog to the Wiimote for the Wii ... that's pure revisionist history. Anyone who really grew up in the 80s will know that was pure BS.

Yup, first one was donkey kong, 1982.

And nobody gave a crap about the design of the dpad in the 80s, because it was just a natural thing, handheld lcd games experimented with all sorts of crazy designs, and in most cases other companies would go with the dpad design because it was cheaper for their per unit BOM, since a single injection piece meant less individual parts, and a single hole for the dpad meant lower mold complexity, and thus lower production cost because holds with thin bridges cause all sorts of headaches for plastics injection on account of the thermals involved with injecting across wide areas and tiny bridges without slurry drag, impefections and other injection related issues.

But it's the one go-to argument for Nintendo fans these days, like the shining golden example of Nintendo innovation, which as i've pointed out, both the shape and mechanical function existed before hand and were just combined in that particular application.

Clammoring that as innovation is nonsensical, it's like calling microsoft innovative for including an ethernet port by default for the xbox, or calling a random chinese console knockoff innovative because it cuts corners in production and combines the plastics for multiple buttons in one.

It isn't, it's natural progression of existing ideas, creating the lightbulb was innovative, putting a lightbulb in a lamp isnt.



Soundwave on 09 February 2017
NATO said:
Soundwave said:

The NES wasn't even the first time I saw/used a d-pad either. That was a Game & Watch device. 

 

Yup, first one was donkey kong, 1982.

I don't even remember anyone using the term "d-pad" (joypad maybe), lol, it wasn't until like the SNES-Genesis dick waving days that people started arguing over petty crap like which system had the "better d-pad" but it was the 90s by then. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 09 February 2017
NATO said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Nintendo could definitely take on Microsoft with a traditional console. The only reason why Microsoft split Sony's former marketshare was by keeping their platform as close to what they expected Sony to make as possible and keep the console third party friendly. If Nintendo did the same and bolstered their first, second and third party exclusives Microsoft would be in for a world of hurt because the hits would just keep on coming. Its the same way Sony came back from a 10 million console deficit to Microsoft. Their exclsuives kept people interested while Microsoft was struggling to find an answer.

Now explain why the vita outsold the wiiu, despite it being treated like an unwanted teen pregnancy by Sony for virtually it's whole life.

The Vita sold to Sony's loyalists of their handhelds. The PSP sold more than the Vita did, but the handheld intererest lowered as droughts were rampant. This is the same thing that hurt the Wii U. Vita is similar to the switch in what it does but there will be more third party support if Nintendo is to be believed. The thing that makes the Vita unappealing is what made the PSP and DS more appealing. They were cheaper to develop for and thus the third party was quicker and more readily to appear in abundance. This made for a larger and more memorable library. If you look at the highest selling consoles they were not the most powerful. The Wii, PS2, PS1, DS and 3DS were the least powerful of their respective generations. The PS4 is the first time in a long time that the most powerful console is winning by a mile like the SNES to the genesis.



NATO on 09 February 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
NATO said:

Now explain why the vita outsold the wiiu, despite it being treated like an unwanted teen pregnancy by Sony for virtually it's whole life.

The Vita sold to Sony's loyalists of their handhelds. The PSP sold more than the Vita did, but the handheld intererest lowered as droughts were rampant. This is the same thing that hurt the Wii U. Vita is similar to the switch in what it does but there will be more third party support if Nintendo is to be believed. The thing that makes the Vita unappealing is what made the PSP and DS more appealing. They were cheaper to develop for and thus the third party was quicker and more readily to appear in abundance. This made for a larger and more memorable library. If you look at the highest selling consoles they were not the most powerful. The Wii, PS2, PS1, DS and 3DS were the least powerful of their respective generations. The PS4 is the first time in a long time that the most powerful console is winning by a mile like the SNES to the genesis.

WiiU launched directly after a 100m+ selling nintendo home console, where are those loyalists? last i checked psp didn't sell 100m

Also..

>implaying success has anything to do with system performance and not just the games available for it and whether or not its seen as the trendy console to own.

Seriously, show me a single person, ever, who went out to buy a console with the explicit requirement that it be the least powerful one.



Soundwave on 09 February 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
NATO said:

Now explain why the vita outsold the wiiu, despite it being treated like an unwanted teen pregnancy by Sony for virtually it's whole life.

The Vita sold to Sony's loyalists of their handhelds. The PSP sold more than the Vita did, but the handheld intererest lowered as droughts were rampant. This is the same thing that hurt the Wii U. Vita is similar to the switch in what it does but there will be more third party support if Nintendo is to be believed. The thing that makes the Vita unappealing is what made the PSP and DS more appealing. They were cheaper to develop for and thus the third party was quicker and more readily to appear in abundance. This made for a larger and more memorable library. If you look at the highest selling consoles they were not the most powerful. The Wii, PS2, PS1, DS and 3DS were the least powerful of their respective generations. The PS4 is the first time in a long time that the most powerful console is winning by a mile like the SNES to the genesis.

Even that is technically not true. 

The Saturn was less powerful than the Playstation. The Dreamcast was less powerful than the PS2. 

Being less powerful doesn't gauruntee you shit. 

The home consoles that win their generation do so usually with the best third party support combined with good execution (ie: good pricing, marketing, etc.). The "power" stuff basically just boils down to one factor: can your hardware run the "big gun" software of its day that the masses really want to play. That's all. 

Sony, like them or not, simply does this better than anyone else, it's why they've basically won 3/4 generations and won them easily, and even their worst selling console (PS3) would equate to sales that any one of Sega, Nintendo, or Microsoft would gladly take. When 85 million people still buy your "failed" console, lol, this is like the kid in school who thinks getting a B+ is the end of the world because they only get As.