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

Tbh on the Zelda thing those saying TP doesn't interest you in particular isn't a sign of decline but more a inclination of what you're expecting, TP is the second best selling Zelda so if anything the fanbase is growing again after the dip from previous games. Me personally I feel TP is one of the best games I've ever played, the problem with claiming something is in decline is that the really has to be something a bit more concrete to back that up as the signs show things are picking up, OOT has the fortune of being revolutionary which helps amplify the feeling of nostalgia when most people look back at it as a game tbh MM, WW and TP are better imo in straight comparisons people won't like to hear that view as it's popular to know the 3 after OOT.

Zelda imo doesn't need as big a overhaul as some would like to think, maybe a few tweaks to the approach like being more open but nothing that would butcher the series some people might have to also accept that Zelda is no longer in their tastes or that they're looking for something that's best provided else where as tbh I see no decline at all. A massive overhaul will only have the RE4 effect as even after RE4's success at being a great overhaul many fans of the series had mixed reactions and the overhaul hasn't stopped RE5 disappointing numerous people who ironically complained that it's just RE4 in HD like the formula has been used to death.



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
KungKras said:
I edited my post.

I can look up malstrom articles where he complains about both Ocarina and Majoras Mask, but please don't make me do that today, I have to get some sleep soon.

I'm sure he dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. To wit:

Why Zelda games cannot match the social phenomenons the 8-bit/16-bit and Ocarina games did.
This has nothing to do with his liking for the games or even their quality, just that Majora's Mask was a social phenomenon.

Him liking the games have nothing to do with it - in this case he's not acting as a critic save in some isolated clauses that I addressed in other posts, and not in this conversation.

Majora's Mask was not a social phenomenon. Ocarina of Time was. Majoras Mask was just Ocarina of Time's weird cousin.

I don't really believe in the Zenith theory either. Sure Zelda has been relatively consistant in sales, but the game quality has also been relatively consistant although declining. Zelda is a series that is at risk of falling into disinterrest, not rapidly falling into disinterrest right now. Ocarina of Time sold what it did on the N64 install base. Newer Zeldas have much bigger install bases than that to sell on.

If you point to the sales of Twilight Princess, I say that it's because of it being a launch title wich Zelda has never been before (And selling on the Wii and not the N64) and point to the dissapointing sales of Sprit Tracks. (Wich deserved dissapoining sales IMO, trains in Zelda is like meat balls in ice cream).



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:

Majora's Mask was not a social phenomenon. Ocarina of Time was. Majoras Mask was just Ocarina of Time's weird cousin.

I don't really believe in the Zenith theory either. Sure Zelda has been relatively consistant in sales, but the game quality has also been relatively consistant although declining. Zelda is a series that is at risk of falling into disinterrest, not rapidly falling into disinterrest right now. Ocarina of Time sold what it did on the N64 install base. Newer Zeldas have much bigger install bases than that to sell on.

If you point to the sales of Twilight Princess, I say that it's because of it being a launch title wich Zelda has never been before (And selling on the Wii and not the N64) and point to the dissapointing sales of Sprit Tracks. (Wich deserved dissapoining sales IMO, trains in Zelda is like meat balls in ice cream).

The "zenith" thing isn't a theory, it's a fact when you put the sales of the games on a graph.



Khuutra said:
KungKras said:

Majora's Mask was not a social phenomenon. Ocarina of Time was. Majoras Mask was just Ocarina of Time's weird cousin.

I don't really believe in the Zenith theory either. Sure Zelda has been relatively consistant in sales, but the game quality has also been relatively consistant although declining. Zelda is a series that is at risk of falling into disinterrest, not rapidly falling into disinterrest right now. Ocarina of Time sold what it did on the N64 install base. Newer Zeldas have much bigger install bases than that to sell on.

If you point to the sales of Twilight Princess, I say that it's because of it being a launch title wich Zelda has never been before (And selling on the Wii and not the N64) and point to the dissapointing sales of Sprit Tracks. (Wich deserved dissapoining sales IMO, trains in Zelda is like meat balls in ice cream).

The "zenith" thing isn't a theory, it's a fact when you put the sales of the games on a graph.

Oh, I thought that you meant that every series has its zenith and will decline once it has been reached.

Well, in that case my point still stands. Quality and sales are declining in the Zelda series relative to the install base that they were on and their ability to move hardware.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
Khuutra said:
KungKras said:

Majora's Mask was not a social phenomenon. Ocarina of Time was. Majoras Mask was just Ocarina of Time's weird cousin.

I don't really believe in the Zenith theory either. Sure Zelda has been relatively consistant in sales, but the game quality has also been relatively consistant although declining. Zelda is a series that is at risk of falling into disinterrest, not rapidly falling into disinterrest right now. Ocarina of Time sold what it did on the N64 install base. Newer Zeldas have much bigger install bases than that to sell on.

If you point to the sales of Twilight Princess, I say that it's because of it being a launch title wich Zelda has never been before (And selling on the Wii and not the N64) and point to the dissapointing sales of Sprit Tracks. (Wich deserved dissapoining sales IMO, trains in Zelda is like meat balls in ice cream).

The "zenith" thing isn't a theory, it's a fact when you put the sales of the games on a graph.

Oh, I thought that you meant that every series has its zenith and will decline once it has been reached.

Well, in that case my point still stands. Quality and sales are declining in the Zelda series relative to the install base that they were on and their ability to move hardware.

....Relative to install base!? Since when does install base matter?

So you're sayingn that Twilight Princess fell back to about NES Zelda level, or what? I mean, it stopped seriously selling about eighteen months ago....



Around the Network
KungKras said:

I say that it's because of it being a launch title wich Zelda has never been before 

A Link to the Past came out only 8 months after SNES launched.  Link's Awakening DX came out a month after the GBC.  So the franchise has released at least close to launch before, even if not on day one.

I agree the Zenith thing might be a bit too simplistic, but I think we can see reasons why some games sold more than others.  Majora's Mask came out when PS2 was launching, required the 4MB expansion pack (which it WASN'T bundled with) and was considered by it's creators even as a spinoff.  The Wind Waker had a controversial change in style, controversial change in setting/world, and was on the declining GameCube.  Spirit Tracks followed up the generally disappointing (but huge selling) Phantom Hourglass, featuring an even more restrictive mode of transport.  There's always context here.

Likewise, I think we can see why some do great.  Ocarina of Time was literally hyped to hell by the entire industry, and was a product of an era where it seemed like EAD could do no wrong.  The Oracle games encouraged buying both titles, were late comers to the hugely popular GBC and even had GBA hooks.  Twilight Princess had the luxury of being a launch game, multiplatform, and was a more direct "sequel" to the seminal OOT.  Phantom Hourglass had an ingenious new interface, amazing graphics (for DS) and was the franchise launch on Nintendo's most successful system ever.

Really, the reasons are in the details surrounding each release.  The general media response, the fan response, platform variables, launch timeframe, reception of it's immediate predecessor, game design, etc.  All things considered though, I'd say Zelda's remained surprisingly consistent through the years, and is one of the few to really survive from it's inception through the 3D transition until today relatively unscathed.  I mean, how many huge 3D series are comparable today to what they were in the mid/late 90s when OOT hit?  Metal Gear Solid?  Final Fantasy?  Tomb Raider?  Sonic Adventure?  Tekken?  Crash Bandicoot?  Tony Hawk?  Resident Evil?  Zelda's held up better than any of them commercially...



Well, with his latest post, Malstrom has pretty much lost me


(I really like the guy but, really, he's gone so over-the-top, this time, that even I can't hang on.)




exindguy said:

Well, with his latest post, Malstrom has pretty much lost me


(I really like the guy but, really, he's gone so over-the-top, this time, that even I can't hang on.)

I disagree - immensely - with Malstrom on many things related to gaming criticism, and I don't think he's really qualified to talk about games in any authoritative way.

That said, I do not begrudge him the act of doing so, and can see where he's coming from in certain cases (too many cutscenes, etc).

Though he is kind of confusing "gameplay trailer" with "gameplay footage"



Squilliam said:
UncleScrooge said:
@Alby:



Oh and Natal is not disruptive! Nintendo is disruptive but Microsoft is only trying to counter-act this so this is not a disruption. Natal would be disruptive if it offered something completely new, with a different business model, etc. But Microsoft is only adapting to Nintendo's rules.

I say it is. The more I think about Natals gaming applications the more im drawn to the true value of Natal is not that its a controller or that its different to the Wii or PS3s versions of the controller but the potential to disrupt the normal business practices of the market. Nintendo created the modern closed box console ideal, Sony introduces a razor/blades mentality to take over a market which had similar offerings by taking a hit on initial sales but reaping the reward long term and finally I believe Natal changes things up again by introducing an OEM mentality where the added value of Natal is in bundling the entire console and interface into completely new products. (1)

The value of Natal is as a hands free generic interface which is useful for televisions and other media watching as well as accessing additional content outside of the typical broadcast model like for instance internet TV and media stored at home. The disruption is against the typical TV remote control which has become overcomplicated with time and most people cannot figure out how to use it or the features of their TV. They know what they want, they can say what they want to watch but many cannot easily perform the actions to do it efficiently. This is where Natal comes in, its a way to both make controlling the TV easier and freeing people from the bonds of being forced to hold a remote control. People only have two hands and technology which frees them of their burdens and provides addition options whilst doing so can be very compelling. (2)

The model as I see it is this; the person buys the interface by buying the TV which has Natal built in and they get the Xbox 360 automatically as the one package. This isn't disruption of the market in the Wii sense, (3) its more along the lines of how Sony won with the PS1 its a change in business practices. The idea is to get as many Xbox 360s with Natal emplaced around the world and then afterwards figure out how best to sell software. The Natal idea is to disrupt the typical TV/human interface and in doing so leverage that as an advantage in the console space. The reason why Xbox Live still costs is that Microsoft needs a carrot for TV manufacturers whom are struggling with low margins on long term sale products to give them a great financial incentive to get on board.

(1) Interesting idea but this wouldn't be disruptive. Oh and you are talking about bundling the console + Natal with other devices, right? In that case Natal wouldn't be in the console market anymore. This would be some sort of "all kinds of entertainment" market and Natal wouldn't compete with anything Nintendo or Sony do anymore. Yeah, the thing could still be used to play games but the iPhone isn't competing with the DS, either and it can also play games. Also it would be way too easy for competitors to develop a Natal clone (one that doesn't need a 360 hooked onto it...) so I doubt Microsoft would do this.

(2) TV remotes have been getting too complex? I've never seen anyone complaining about complicated TV remotes, really These things are very easy to use. I agree with you hand gestures could make things easier but why would Microsoft do this? Why would they try to compete in a market they are not even part of? And why shouldn't TV makers just copy this? Natal as a TV remote wouldn't be a disrupting product, anyways.

(3) It's not disruptive, at all! :-p

Honestly at some point someone will have to explain that kicking your neighbours' butt isn't disruptive. You can't just use disruption to explain everything :-p Disruption doesn't mean "innovating" or "broadening the market". Everyone is so focused on disruption it's getting crazy. I once got an A+ in maths by cheating, am I disruptive now? If a married man happens to have an affair is he disruptive because he "broadened the market"?

To be honest I'm not even sure what would happen if Microsoft tried to actually disrupt the market again. Not only would it be almost impossible at this point (you can only disrupt a market if there are overshot market segments. These segments do currently not exist  because the market is being disrupted right now by a low-end disruption) but people would most likely run away because companies constantly talking about "disrupting your market" (in a sense of disrupting the current market leader) are a bit scary. It's a bit like elections in politics: People like change but imagine the government changing after each election for like 5 times in a row, in this order: Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Greens. Wouldn't you emigrate at some point?



Dear Mr Malstrom,

First of all, I am sorry for the quality of my English, as I am French and do not really master the language.

A few days ago, I heard about your blog when reading Internet gaming forums about the PS Move and the 3DS. I have one thing to tell you : how blind I was ! I really felt you were talking about me when you mentioned the former players who did not to play anymore until the Wii. The fact is that after my SNES, games did not feel the same to me, and then I bought a DS and a Wii, and games are now starting to have the flavor they should always have had.

But the real point of my email is the following : is disruption only a business concept ? Reading your articles, I came to think that ecology first appealed to people who did not feel concerned about the current system’s values. Ecology then got refined in sustainable development and started to apply in new fields of concern, resulting in more and more people adopting this view.

Do you think ecology and sustainable development (not sustainable in terms of just improving, but in creating things that last long) could be disruptive ?

Thank you very much for your answer and for having given me the will to learn more about those concepts of disruption and blue ocean.

Clayton Christenson’s concepts of disruption apply only in business, and there is a reason for this.

One of the problems with disruption is that people enjoy the concept so much they begin to apply it to everything. Perhaps that is how it goes with new meaningful ideas. When Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, people tried to apply it to everything and say, “That is relative,” and “That over there is relative.”

With disruption, people have a habit of applying disruption to everything. “My car is disruptive.” “My cat is disruptive.” “I am a disruptive man!” Christenson has complained about this.

So the antidote to this is to keep any discussion of disruption anchored to the texts (much of which is available online). Sure, we can unroot disruption and mean it to be whatever we want. But aren’t we just wasting our time if we do that? The reason why I don’t think it is a good idea to try to apply disruption outside of business is because you’ll likely uproot disruption to mean something it isn’t and end up wasting your time.

Some people think that a product ‘must’ be disruptive in order to be a success. That isn’t true. Disruption depends entirely on the market’s needs. A window for disruption occurs only when the market is overshot. So during the 16-bit generation, most customers were underserved. They were not overshot by the graphics. So there was no window for disruption at that time. Sustaining innovations were correct.

Disruption requires an incumbent. What is the product disrupting? The iPhone wasn’t disruptive. It wasn’t disrupting anything else. It was, essentially, a better smartphone. That doesn’t mean the iPhone wasn’t exciting, wasn’t cool, wasn’t a good product.

Christenson came up with disruption because he noticed a pattern how business leaders, using what they learned in business schools, make the correct moves by ‘making a better product’ with sustaining models. Then, their businesses would collapse to upstart disruptors. Christenson figured out a long puzzle as to why a business can be doomed if it just keeps making a ‘better product’.

And just because a product is disruptive doesn’t mean it will ‘win’. Netscape tried to disrupt Windows and look what happened there. Netbooks tried to disrupt computers and Microsoft rapidly responded by throwing XP at a very cheap price on the machines. Christenson developed this further by talking about the Sword and Shield of the disruptor concerning asymmetric values.

I’m saddened that so many people want to take disruption out of its business context because the business context is so much fun. I love business! Business is all about winners and losers, like any sport. However, unlike a sport, business does change the world and our civilization. The good businessman is an odd fellow. He is very rare. He talks like a truck driver. He isn’t well ’schooled’. He is very brave. And he knows Human Nature like the back of his hand. I learned more about Human Nature from studying business than I ever did from psychology, from literature, or from philosophy.

Here is a funny example of what I mean. This fictional example of a business owner going to college really brings out the contrast between the reality of the real world versus the artificial academic setting. And businessmen I know do have the mannerisms of a truck driver. What a hoot.

This is such an entertaining movie. Let us watch another scene.

In the above sequence, it is another clash between reality (represented by Dangerfield) and the fake universe the ‘party’ is in. I have seen this ‘clash’ in reality and I am like, “My God! I love these businessmen!”The reality they live in is so much fun.

Now, the above were comedy routines, but humor is funny only when it is true.

The reason why I like the business of gaming is even though games are silly amusement products, the business is very cutthroat and very, very few people survive. Just look at this generation, alone, and see how in a few years how one company, Nintendo, was said to be unable to compete and about to leave the console business completely changed the game. In a few years, now Nintendo is on top and Microsoft and Sony are in trouble. Of course, the tables could be flipped around again. I get more entertainment looking at the business side of gaming than I do from the games themselves. I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing!

 

 

I’m very interested to know who is being spoken about by ‘followers’.

An apparent GoNintendo mod made this insulting comment:

Don’t worry Darth Vader, Malstrom and his followers are still gonna hate it.

Followers? People who read this website do so because they are in the same boat I am as they are former console gamers who are coming back because of the DS and Wii.

Are the millions of people who bought the Wii for Mario 5 and completely skipped Mario Galaxy my followers as well?

Are the declining sales and interest in the Zelda franchise also belong to my ‘followers’?

Did my ‘followers’ buy NES Classic Metroid for GBA and Virtual Console while skipping Zero Mission? Did a million of my ‘followers’ buy Metroid Prime and not buy
Metroid Fusion?

What if people like myself are closer to the masses and their disinterest than the kids who populate the gaming message forums?

Mods like Garfitor probably don’t think I see their insulting comments, but I have been seeing this on GoNintendo for quite some time. I remember defending GoNintendo from people like Steve Kent who was trashing the site with no reason.

Word to Rawmeat Cowboy: characters like Garfitor are giving credence to the GoNintendo bashers.

Apparently, I am not allowed to have a different opinion on a video game than Garfitor is. And apparently that differing opinion is only “hate”. Incredible. And if anyone agrees with that opinion, they are not people who agree or share the same views. They are ‘followers’ as if mind-numb robots.

One thing I am realizing is that children these days have never been challenged in many of their conventional wisdom held views. You can even see this on something as inconsequential as video games. No one has ever challenged their conventional wisdom held view, for example, that the game comes from the ‘artist’ designer. So if I criticize someone like Miyamoto, they go complete bonkers. And I would be in every right to criticize Miyamoto as he hasn’t been making games that interested me in almost fifteen years. And how he stopped making 2d Mario games was absolutely outrageous. Why should I have to wait eighteen years for a Mario game? And with someone like Sakamoto, from my perspective, he is consistent only in driving the Metroid franchise into the ditch. Metroid Fusion’s story was so bad that no one wants to make a Metroid game post-Fusion. Metroid Zero Mission sold so bad that Nintendo refuses to make a new 2d Metroid. I’m pointing out that the reason why Metroid hasn’t became a major success was because Sakamoto and his stupid ideas were holding the series into the sales gutter. The peak of the Metroid franchise, both in sales and in public interest, has been the Prime series of which Sakamoto had little part.

Responding to what I’ve said such as the above as ‘hate’ is childish and shows kids like Garfitor have never truly been challenged. I’ve been playing Metroid before most of these kids on the gaming message forums were even born. It is time they start growing a pair and meet up to the challenge rather than just labeling every different opinion as ‘hate’.

 

You have to laugh at how many people don’t even know the difference between a teaser trailer and a gameplay trailer. A gameplay trailer is footage of someone playing the game. A teaser trailer is little more than cherry picked parts placed in a montage that doesn’t really show the game being played.

For example, this is from Twilight Princess. While it has gameplay shown, it is not gameplay footage. It is just a teaser trailer.

Now, here is actual footage of the game being played.

Now, let us look back at Metroid Prime 3 which was the last Metroid game released for the home console (and released for the Wii as well). Granted, I agree the game was quite a mess. But at least it had the balls to show us actual gameplay footage as opposed to a blackout on footage and seeing only ‘teasers’. Remember the Metroid Channel that was downloaded to your Wii? All it had was clips of gameplay footage.

At the very end, there is a clip of gameplay footage. As the release date approached for Metroid Prime 3, more gameplay footage clips were added to the Metroid Channel.

Where is the gameplay footage? There are only flashes of a montage strung together. Only at the end there is footage that is longer than two seconds and even that is nothing more than to show Samus bouncing around with auto-aiming doing the weapon work.

Nintendo has had people play the game. Why not actually show them playing the game? What is the harm in just watching someone play it? Why is there so much darkness over the game?

The marketing strategy for Other M appears to be selling the game on its style as opposed to its substance. With Mario games, they show gameplay footage. With Zelda games, they show gameplay footage. With the Metroid Prime games, they even showed gameplay footage.

Other M’s teasers have been so cinematic heavy that people are confusing no cinematics to mean ‘gameplay footage’. Gameplay footage means showing the substance of the game. It means showing someone playing it as is. It does not mean cutting and pasting a montage of three to six second clips intermixed with yet more flashes from the cinematics (cinematics are still highlighted in this trailer). Gameplay footage means footage. Three to five second clips are not footage in any shape or way.

One thing Nintendo has asked, and I am referring to an interview Miyamoto said back when the Wii launched, is for people of disinterest to speak up. If you wonder why people of disinterest do not speak up, it is because they are constantly being shouted down. When you look at the reactions to any of the Other M trailers, for example, anyone who isn’t drinking the hype who is uncomfortable with the game get screamed at. Now, who wants to be screamed at over the Internet? Since people of disinterest don’t have any interest, they’ll just leave and all you will hear are people crying and sobbing over how great a trailer is. Then the game comes out and, despite glowing reviews and Internet praise, the game performs badly. This is the pattern.

In my own experience, when I said I do not like 3d Mario but only see the 2d Marios as true Mario games, people just scream at me. Why? Can they not live with someone disagreeing with them? Apparently not. From NSMB DS, Nintendo knew 2d Mario was very much in demand and knew it was big enough to place as their flagship game for the 2009 holidays. However, what they did not anticipate was just how deep the demand was for Super Mario Brothers 5. A massive tidal wave slammed into the sales charts that completely obliterated the huge stockpile of Wii Nintendo had. Ironically, Nintendo cut their price on the Wii as sales declined. Price  cut didn’t do anything. Then after Mario 5, boom. Wii sales shot up dramatically all over the world.

Or take Zelda. If I say that Zelda is becoming irrelevant because the gameplay of Zelda games have more in common with the Adventures of Lolo than with the action/RPG hybrid that used to be Zelda, I’d get shouted down. People would be screaming at me for posting my own honest thoughts on my very own website. Why are people so upset? The only people who should be upset are those of disinterest since products are not coming out that they want to play! But after Spirit Tracks, it was undeniable that something with the direction of the Zelda series isn’t right.

Metroid is the most interesting of cases. Unlike the more popular Zelda and Mario series, Metroid people squeal like stuck pigs if you voice any dis-satisfaction with Other M or even Sakamoto. I, myself, have even had Metroid fans say they want to punch me, inflict violence on me, just for posting my own honest thoughts on my very own website.

What right does anyone have to tell someone else to shut up about their honest reaction to a game?

And you can see people trying to shut up those who did not like the new Other M trailer. They are very blatant about it. You do not see those who did not like the Other M trailer trying to shut up those who did like it. I’m looking in forums now and when someone says something like, “This doesn’t look like Metroid to me,” an avalanche of hate filled posts target the poster.

So what is going on here? Why all this Metroid batshit insanity? Why the hostility to people who hold disinterest?

Human nature is funny in that when someone invests emotions into something, they defend it tooth and nail to the end. For example, if a guy finds out his girl has like ten kids all fathered by different men, the guy would respond by saying, “She isn’t easy,” or some derivative of that. People invest emotions first and are unwilling to dislodge them once facts come to light.

Anything someone says along the line of “Other M is not a Metroid game”, these people corkscrew themselves into incredible spins and loops in order to say Other M is a Metroid game. If we find out in Other M that Samus got married and had kids, they would say, “Well, that is no different than in any other Metroid game!” What the hell!? So when someone points out the cutscenes, the big boobs, the constant chatter and talking, all the NPCs (“Remember me?”), the auto-aiming, limit on weapons being determined by Adam’s “authority”, and so on and so forth,  they amazingly polevault in trying to point to a previous Metroid game. It has gotten so absurd as some are saying that Other M’s voice acting is great because of the voice acting in Super Metroid. While these people might hang around in their herd of thinkgroup, they do not realize how absurd they sound and how ridiculous their ‘arguments’ are.

They accuse those of disinterest for the faults they are committing: “No matter what the game is, you guys will just hate it!” Isn’t that what they are doing? When Sakamoto talked about Samus’s ‘maternal feelings’ and how Other M will talk about that, they began, absurdly, to say that ‘maternal feelings’ is what Metroid has been all about. What. The. Hell.

It is gotten so bad they do not know what gameplay footage is. They think a teaser trailer not entirely being cinematics is ‘gameplay footage’. It isn’t. But they are twisting everything to mean what they want it to mean.

If you notice, through this I have not yet expressed any opinion on the new Other M trailer except to point out that it isn’t really showing gameplay footage that isn’t chopped up into a few seconds. I am more curious how gamers are trying to shut up other gamers. These other gamers are not trolling. They are giving their genuine thoughts. Why try to shut them up? Perhaps it is because the interest in Other M is still, at this point, only hype based, not substance based and is as fragile as glass?

 

 

 

Listen to Greenberg hype up Natal.

the peripheral will offer both “game experiences” and “lifestyle experiences” when it launches.

I am sure Microsoft probably looks at something like Wii Fit or Wii Sports and think ‘lifestyle experiences’. Already, they are segregating the consumers.

When the Wii and DS went back to the roots of gaming, the roots were arcade type gaming. It is fun to watch Microsoft and Sony, who have no arcade roots whatsoever, be unable to connect arcade type gaming with new hardware. To them, PC gaming and console gaming are one of the same. So when arcade type gaming enters the stage, they act confused and try to think it is something else.

Lifestyle experiences? Good heavens no.