Kantor said: LordTheNightKnight said: "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Your telling me that during the PS1/PS2 era gaming shrunk!? Look, I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but it was Sony that made gaming cool and expanded it beyond anything it was before with the PS1. Then they broke all records with the PS2." Nintendo tracked sales in markets (they did this for several presentations before they first showed the Wiimote), and it showed that the gaming public was shrinking despite the PS2 selling well. The SNES gen had some 80 million consoles sold. The PS1 gen had 150 million The PS2 gen had 195 million How is that shrinking?

It wasn't that they were measuring. You should find the videos of their presentations.

dorbin2009 said: So lets get this straight. Nintendo completely ignores what gamers want for ten years, then releases a motion control stick and all of a sudden they are the true mecca of gaming? Or did you forget every system since the SNES flopping on it's face? I'm sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic that for two generations, the company basically reduced itself to a fan service machine while the other two companies basically carried gaming on their back to the audience that now appreciates and adores the pasttime, and now because the Wii has sold so well, we can forget the last ten years. The PS1 and PS2 completely changed the way mature audiences view video games. The mere fact that Sony took a risk with the disk storage medium resulted in games as we know it today. Final Fantasy 7 would not have happened if there was just Nintendo in town (or at least without the FMV's, graphics, and content that you so dearly love). Microsoft proved once and for all that competitive multiplayer online gaming can be had on consoles. Halo 2 pretty much wrote the book on it. Xbox live, for all its flaws , was around before the other networks and deserves the credit for it. Don't worry though, the gamecube network was a close second...oh wait? Lastly, whomever wrote the article is a complete moron for the assumption that "Microsoft & Sony wouldn't care if they left the gaming world". Both companies have invested billions of dollars in the market, and have shown through continuous improvement that they in fact want to stay in the business. If anything, I would turn the tables on Nintendo and accuse them of being the laziest this generation. I actually think they wouldn't seem to mind if they abandoned the console market; after all they pump more quality games onto the DS than the Wii anyway. Or did you forget that the number one console system is basically a gamecube with rave sticks? We are in 2009 and the best the thing can do is 480p? Has it really pushed for quality third party support? Where's its commitment to the future? They just made you pony up for "Wii motion +", and apparently are calling it a day in the realm of innovation. There is some great potential for the system, but there is also room for a whole lot of change. But that's fine, keep playing Mario Galaxy on your high horse and making Sony + MS the villain.

I would first like to point out a contradiction. You can't "ignore what the gamers want for ten years" and at the same time "reduce for a fan service machine", since the only way to do fan service in the business, is to do what the gamers want. Nintendo did the exact same thing with GC and N64, as Sony and M$ did with PSX, PS2 and PS3/ XB and 360.

Considering the first party contributions, it's rather baseless to say that the two other companies (Sony and Sega or Sony and M$ or M$ and Sega) "basically carried gaming on their back", when the biggest contributions on Sonys and M$:s consoles have been what the third parties have offered.

What changed how the mature audience view videogames, was the kids that grew up with videogames growing up. Kids who got introduced to games with NES, are now in their 30:s, or closing. Kids that grew up with Atari 2600/VCS are closing to 40. There are no adults that jump to videogames today because a game is rated as mature. Even the Playstation ads were targeted at teenagers, the people who got into games with NES and too bad for Sony, the teenagers are still their target audience. If you think that Sony had cool ads a decade ago and lame ads today, that's because you have grown up and aren't the one who Sonys ads are targeting.
The disc medium wasn't a risk, it was pretty obvious way to go, since it was cheap to produce. FF7 might have been without cutscenes or it had been on Saturn, nevertheless, gamers hadn't lost anything, possibly even the opposite, since on N64 the graphics could have been made better.

We've had online gaming on consoles ever since the early 80:s, the difference between the two decades is broadband internet. With or without M$, Nintendo and Sony would still have online play, how much have Live contributed to them, is a different matter. Gamecube had everything ready for online, but Nintendo eventually skipped it due to the cost, since that hadn't paid off.

Nintendo didn't forget the past ten years, Sony however did and the results can be seen. Nintendo adopted the most important part in Sonys strategy.

Sony do have a financial incentive to stay in the business, even though it isn't Sonys core business (means in business terms something you can ditch when reconstructuring even if profitable), but M$ doesn't, since their objective is to protect the OS business.
But what gamers really dislike, is Sonys attempt to push their media format on the cost of the gamers, by using PS3 as a trojan horse.

I've about had it up here (no wait, HERE) with this expanded gaming worship. Honestly, expanding the gamer population can be good, but really, if done wrong (and Nintendo IS doing it wrong) all it does is pad numbers. I have been unable to find a single game worth playing on the Wii for 2 years.

Meanwhile my PS3/PS2/X360 are doing just fine.

I find it interesting that online gaming, hard drives, graphics, etc aren't considered innovation. Meanwhile a clunky wand was considered the best new thing for gaming since the paddle.

dharh said: I've about had it up here (no wait, HERE) with this expanded gaming worship. Honestly, expanding the gamer population can be good, but really, if done wrong (and Nintendo IS doing it wrong) all it does is pad numbers. I have been unable to find a single game worth playing on the Wii for 2 years. Meanwhile my PS3/PS2/X360 are doing just fine. I find it interesting that online gaming, hard drives, graphics, etc aren't considered innovation. Meanwhile a clunky wand was considered the best new thing for gaming since the paddle.

Really! Two years?! Please don't put yourself on a level with this guy . . .

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=88350

dharh said: I've about had it up here (no wait, HERE) with this expanded gaming worship. Honestly, expanding the gamer population can be good, but really, if done wrong (and Nintendo IS doing it wrong) all it does is pad numbers. I have been unable to find a single game worth playing on the Wii for 2 years. Meanwhile my PS3/PS2/X360 are doing just fine. I find it interesting that online gaming, hard drives, graphics, etc aren't considered innovation. Meanwhile a clunky wand was considered the best new thing for gaming since the paddle.

Oh do tell me more.

@dharh: I suspect you haven't found a single Wii game.

Innovation as a term means roughly "renewing". Biggest difference between "innovation" and "invention" is, that invention doesn't need to benefit anything.

There are two kinds of innovations, incremental innovations, where a product is made better little by little, and radical innovations, where the consept of the product is different. 360 and PS3 represent incremental innovation, while Wii is radical one.

Incremental innovations are usually not considered as innovative, due to them offering so little benefit over the old product, while radical innovations are praised everywhere for their advantage over the old product.

Wii is praised for innovation, because of the benefits it offer over incremental innovation and PS360 aren't, because they don't offer anything that last gen didn't, except that the hardware are improved versions of last gen consoles.

And no, Nintendo isn't doing it wrong since it's expanding the market.

bdbdbd said: @dharh: I suspect you haven't found a single Wii game. Innovation as a term means roughly "renewing". Biggest difference between "innovation" and "invention" is, that invention doesn't need to benefit anything. There are two kinds of innovations, incremental innovations, where a product is made better little by little, and radical innovations, where the consept of the product is different. 360 and PS3 represent incremental innovation, while Wii is radical one. Incremental innovations are usually not considered as innovative, due to them offering so little benefit over the old product, while radical innovations are praised everywhere for their advantage over the old product. Wii is praised for innovation, because of the benefits it offer over incremental innovation and PS360 aren't, because they don't offer anything that last gen didn't, except that the hardware are improved versions of last gen consoles. And no, Nintendo isn't doing it wrong since it's expanding the market.

Check my games list, the last wii game I have is from 2007.

I agree with your classification of types of innovation, but I defy anyone who claims that the hard drive and online gaming only offer a little benefit. They may not be as 'game' changing as the wiimote is for people who like motion controls, but it adds a ton of benefit for me.

But whatever. I won't jump on the bandwagon just because a bunch of people tell me too. Until I find something compelling, it just ain't happening.

wth? I edit and it reposts?

Fab_GS said:

 

Well, If the gaming industry dies, Nintendo will really be the ones hurt. Sony would come second because they actually make a large portion of their overall profits from the Playstation brand. Microsoft, although I don't want to say it, generates a small portion of their profits from the Xbox brand (This is, however, because Microsoft generates a huge profit year after year, so it makes the Xbox's profits look fairly insignificant, even though its made billions.)