d21lewis said:
The Wii was just a GameCube remodel. |
So, what you're saying is, that the PS4 still hasn't outsold the Gamecube at 137M.
d21lewis said:
The Wii was just a GameCube remodel. |
So, what you're saying is, that the PS4 still hasn't outsold the Gamecube at 137M.
Discounts of older games, and maybe a proper Virtual Console instead of the one tied to the online fee. Though I cannot imagine this happening.
RolStoppable said:
That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10. This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out. While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality. |
You are falling for the bullshitting of the 'AAA'-industry if you believe all the DLC, microtransactions, ultimate editions and whatnot is to finance the games. At the same time they extract increasing amounts of money from the customer (as is evident in the growth of the industry as a whole), they fire workers and make more and more cost cutting things. That is why you have more multiplayer, because single-player usually needs more handcrafted content which is more expensive. That's why you have more run-of-the-mill missions and content, because it saves money to copy the content and just change the level of the enemies and recombine some other visuals (not make new ones for the mission, no, recombine other visuals already existing). The result is something like Marvel's Avengers, very much a game that just simply is repeated content. But still they want more money. That is not to finance the games, it is to finance the CEOs and shareholders.
RolStoppable said:
That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10. This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out. While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality. |
At bold: Very true, that's one big thing why I love Nintendo, they leave most of the bullshit out. I mean they even sold Super Mario Run for $10 with no additional costs - but obviously people are too stupid to see the good deal in it. During the whole PS3 era I never paid for PS Plus and for PS4 it was not before this year that I paid for it (because I thought Fall Guy would be a game my girlfriend would like, you got it for free with a PS Plus account, but it was no game for her - back to Super Mario Party).
Back to topic: Obviously we have a different opinion about core and hardcore gamers and the difference between them. Let me try to explain it from another point of view: There are player types who don't like Nintendo games at all, simply none of their IP's. But they like AA-AAA 3rd party games. Some like Action-Adventures with realistic graphics like Assassins Creed, Tomb Raider, GTA, Red Dead Redemption..., some like shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Destiny, Rainbow Six: Siege,... others prefer racing games like Dirt 5, F1 2020, Project Cars, Need for Speed,... and others like RPG's like Final Fantasy, Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout, Persona 5,...or fighting games like Street Fighter 5, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, The King of Fighters IV,... or realistic sports games like NHL, NFL, UFC, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 1+2,...and many more. All these games are not available on Nintendo Switch. If they were, some (and we're talking about millions) would buy or at the very least be tempted to buy a Nintendo Switch. Again, why should they buy one if they already own a superior version of the game on PC/PS4/PS5/XOne/Xbox Series S/X? The answer is the same as before: Because it's lazy and therefore attractive to play those games comfortably on the couch or bed, plus as an additional bonus you can play it on the go.
Granted, if it would be possible (and in reality it's not possible) to have a super high-end hybrid console with all the bells and whistles, good battery life but without overheating and ports from PS5/Xbox Series X/S would technically be easy and cheap to port, surely Nintendo would bring out such a hybrid and surely virtually all 3rd parties would bring out virtually all of their games to the Nintendo Switch (assuming that it would continue to sell like hot cakes). Certainly, Nintendo feels no bitterness against 3rd party AA-AAA games.
RolStoppable said:
It's plain hope on your part that there are millions of gamers out there the way you describe them. To me, your post sounds a lot like you are trying to come up with some kind of reasoning that would justify Nintendo doing something that you personally would want to play on Switch (more AAA third party games), but there's no evidence whatsoever to support your post. |
I think most console gamers play the one or other 3rd party AA-AAA game. Most just don't play them on the Switch. As a sportsmen I just say that a former Champion will never accept that others have become better than him. I was there when Nintendo had the best and most 3rd party support (NES and SNES), I was there when they started to struggle but still got some good chunk of 3rd party support (N64 and GameCube) and I was also there when they started their Blue Ocean strategy (starting with the DS and cumulating with the Wii) which brought them big success but it came at a price: 3rd party support on the Wii was bullshit (at least for me and many other core gamers). The WiiU initially had promising 3rd party support but unfortunately, Nintendo fucked up. Then came the Switch. In retrospective, looking back, it weren't the 3rd parties wanting to leave Nintendo, it was Nintendo who made the 3rd parties life difficult: The Wii was technically to inferior for triple A games, the WiiU was an economical disaster and therefore, the 3rd parties left the sinking ship and on the Switch the 3rd parties really try hard (some of them at least) but ultimately, it's too difficult/time consuming/expensive to port triple A games.
Coming back to the comparison with sports, lets compare it with Tennis: In Tennis you have 4 main goals: being No. 1, winning Grand Slams, winning Masters and winning lower tier tournaments. In gaming (for console manufacturers) the 4 main goals are: being No. 1 (= highest profit), most units sold in hardware/software (= Grand Slams), having the best 3rd party AA-AAA support (= Masters) and finally having the best Indie support (= lower tier).
Currently, Nintendo is on a streak to be No. 1, selling most units (hardware and software) and at least playing with the best of the best when it comes to Indie support. But they are losing the Masters, the 3rd party AA-AAA games. If Nintendo would have those games, they would bring huge amounts of additional licensing fees, Nintendo should not miss on that money. As a sportsmen, when you once were the king of winning Master titles, why should you suddenly abandon them? Maybe you can argue that with the Blue Ocean strategy they have left the sport and created their own new sport without competition but that's not true as still many of the same players are under your contract (3rd parties).
Of course there a significant difference between sports and companies: The only goal companies have is to make as much profit as possible, no matter how. But with nothing you will not make profit that's why a gaming company needs to do something to achieve profits: i.e. selling consoles, accessories, subscriptions, games and dlc.
What the hell is DLSS?
I don’t expect things. Why should I do that?
Mine is an extremely hopeful dream, I wish that instead of a new version of the console, we get a new type of controller, with a small touchscreen, I would use this to enable people to get together and play board games and each controller can provide each player with their cards or whatever they might use in the game.
I love the idea of local multiplayer but it is tough to expect to have 5-6 people with a switch to play a boardgame, but with maybe $40 controllers with small screens you could be able to purchase a few for game night.
tack50 said: Am I the only one who thinks that "upgraded" versions of consoles are pretty much never worth it? The extra power will only be used by a handful of games and it is not really a huge reason to upgrade. Exclusives will be extremely few games, if any. The Game Boy Color is a huge outlier here, born out of a lot of particular circumstances that are not applicable 20 years later. |
interesting throughts. We see the first official infos maybe in june ?!