• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Nintendo is doomed/needs to go third party assertion: Why is it so persistent?

Or what? I "fail" your class according to your completely arbitrary metric?

I'm giving you an example topic from this week. I'm not going on an archive expedition to dig out every single "MS doom'd/Sony doom'd" track. I'm giving you the "citation" you wanted. The fact you think I "need" to prove this by "citing" 50 other topics is completely idiotic. If you want to deny reality that hard, keep moving goalposts, no skin off my bones.

What makes you so sure the selection bias is in everyone who sees more 'nintendo should go third party' posts than for either MS or Sony rather than in yourself for not seeing them?

The empirical test would, of course, be to actually collate those threads for each company, and then count the statistical distribution.

Or you know, just shout people down as fanboys stating opinions as facts and don't check the data instead. Whatever, no biggy.
 
The anus conversation is coming solely from you really. If you are naive enough to think that everything ever in the world will all suddenly unify under one banner, and that will somehow benefit everybody, you don't know how business works, at all.

Do you think the movie industry is socialist?

Uniting under one format would actually INCREASE competition, by widening the field. Anybody who makes a Blu-Ray player could start making a Game Player, rather than the current system, where three parties have uncontrollable rule over the entire state of gaming.

Look at PC gaming. Games are delivered via multiple services, and are designed to work on a variety of machines. Progression is done over time, as the games require it.
 

Coolwhip

Banned
Interactive computer games are not pre-recorded music or pre-recorded movies.

Music and video is nothing more than a playback format.

There is, as yet, no one standard kit of computing hardware that does all things, in the single most efficient way possible, at a cheap price, that can be crammed into a tiny consumer box.

There are multiple platforms because there are multiple solutions to trying to create a desirable interactive software platform.

I would predict that the only time there will be the 'single platform' as people imagine it, is when hardware is so powerful, development middleware so flexible, and software engines so mature, that most computer software runs on a single unified Computer Brick that gets plugged into whatever physical framework is desired to use the software in a particular way.

In other words, all boxes, tablets, handhelds, and other devices are running the same code, and the software is designed to detect what kind of device it is running on - tablet, touch interface, keyboard, mice, custom gaming controllers, motion controllers, etc.

And if you could overcome all those challenges, then you might have the hardware agnostic world. But it's not really 'stupid' that there are multiple platforms to this point.

Maybe, but personally I think the big publishers should demand the standard. Without the big publishers MS, Sony are screwed, Nintendo aswell probably. If they demand a standard, then it will happen. It's so inefficient how it currently works. 90% of the HD console games are released on both platforms, which costs the publishers millions I'm sure. But with PS4 and Xbox720 already in development we know it wont happen and if the 10 year cycle is aimed for again the discussion is pretty much pointless. Maybe in 2020.
 
Do you think the movie industry is socialist?

Uniting under one format would actually INCREASE competition, by widening the field. Anybody who makes a Blu-Ray player could start making a Game Player, rather than the current system, where three parties have uncontrollable rule over the entire state of gaming.

But then... you wouldn't have one machine, undermining your argument.

And even if the thing you play your movies on is the same, the film industry is still driven by difference, hundreds of different studios. You want them to merge too, you dirty communist?


Put me on ignore. You seem to be obsessed with me and it's tedious.

Not at all, you just seem to make the stupid, irreverent comments that are the easiest to shoot down.
 

legend166

Member
I think there's a lot of reasons.

From an industry standpoint, I definitely think a huge reason is that Nintendo is not standard. As the industry has shifted focus from the East to the West over the last 10 years, there's very much been a standard recipe that has evolved if you want to succeed. You take a large team, give them copious amounts of money, get them to make something graphically stunning with guns and/or violence, then you market it to males aged 16-35, and then you wait for the money to roll in. Obviously that doesn't cover everything, but it's become more and more the way things are done.

Nintendo doesn't do any of that. So there's this idea that they are an outsider. And in an industry where things are becoming more and more standardised, the concept of there being an outsider who not only does their own thing, but also is generally very successful at doing it. And that's a thing that scares anyone in any industry. If everything is standard, it's much easier to out spend or out market someone. When you've got an unpredictable actor in the market, it's worrying for those who have all their competitive advantage in being able to out spend or out market, because those things are less important. Nintendo going third party would force them to standardise, and that makes it much easier to compete against them.

From a gamer/media standpoint, I think it's a mix of things. There's no doubt that there's a 'I want Nintendo games but don't want to have to buy their hardware' viewpoint, and that's totally valid. But there's also (and this is mainly media based) a 'This company doesn't put forward the image of gaming that I think is best', which really at the core of it boils down to a 'I don't like kiddy games' argument.

What I find stranger than people continually predicting that Nintendo is going third party/out of business/whatever, is this underlying desire in people that they want it to happen. I think that's really strange. Nintendo is a gaming company. It relies entirely on the industry for its survival and prosperity. It is in the best interest of Nintendo for their to be a large, thriving marketplace of consumers who all love video games. I know there's a big desire for the industry to 'mature' and been seen as legitimate, but I just find it so strange that developers/publishers have been so quick to sell themselves to Microsoft, who have specifically stated that their entire goal of entering the industry it to trojan horse their ways into the living room so they can sell their OS and related services. They'll flick video games aside as soon as they can make that happen.

I think if you asked film makers if they'd like to go back to the time when every studio wasn't owned by a media conglomerate, they'd say yes in a heart beat. But the video game industry seems like it wants that to happen as fast as possible, and they're willing to lose the actual video game companies along the way to make it happen. It's weird.
 
They've just had their most successful hardware since the original Nintendo, moved more games than they have in any prior generation, the over expensive 3ds has outpaced the first year of the wildly popular DS, and in a bad year they trounced the full lifetime revenues generated by the IOS app store. When is somebody going to put us all out of our misery and stop you posting bullshit? Your post history is awful... I don't know if you believe what you say or not, but its awful.

If you're that far removed from reality it's not worth my bother responding to you. Remember me when your Nintendo fantasy bubble bursts and the tears are streaming down your cheeks, since I was such a big deal for you.
 
Because it's the way it works. It's the way it has always worked.

Can it really be considered to be working when two of the three gaming platform holders lost money this year?

edit: Also, can we try to tone down the insults and personal attacks? I'm really enjoying this conversation and would hate to see the thread closed. :(
 

Eusis

Member
And if you could overcome all those challenges, then you might have the hardware agnostic world. But it's not really 'stupid' that there are multiple platforms to this point.

Edit: and no, this doesn't even get into the business side of things. This is just the practical problems.

But eventually, when the technology for executing computer programs is so generic and commoditized that there literally IS just "the computing widget", then there may be no profit for business in trying to create unique technologies.
That's right, there's another angle people keep forgetting when it comes to games: they're compared to movies, music, and books here, but that's just half of it. The other half is that they are software, like Office, or Photoshop. It's also why games can age faster than other mediums, they depend more on technology and interface improvements that the likes of Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, or Alien don't depend on. Incidentally, both Microsoft and Apple OSes have managed to co-exist for years, along with Linux chugging along, and in a sense video game consoles are far more comparable to those, it doesn't hurt that to some extent Microsoft and Apple HAVE joined this game too, albeit in very different ways each.
 
Because PCs live in offices.

There's an element of truth to the argument for interface, but ultimately that shit doesn't have to be standardised. Not all DVD players have the same menus. What matters is the core hardware being of a set power, and there being a standardised Internet system in place. The actual GUI could be up to the hardware makers.

A single platform could be a reality if all of the important publishers and manufacturers agreed the standards, but as with DVD (toshiba) and blu ray (sony), consortiums are always led in such a way that interested parties will fight amongst themselves. What I think you are failing to recognise is that not everybody wants another multimedia hub, not everyone wants another dual shock, some people are prepared to pay $599 and a lot more are not. Some people embrace new ideas in interface, others want more of what they already know. Some people want their games to be like films, some people want their games to be like playgrounds. If the market wanted one product, we'd have one product. Instead, the industry has ballooned and we have all sorts of different kinds of software and hardware co-existing and doing very well. This is how it should be, to my mind at least.
 
Can it really be considered to be working when two of the three gaming platform holders lost money this year?

Atari lost money. Sega lost money. A few companies losing money does not suddenly mean the multiplatform structure is going to magically disappear. If Sony failed, a new company would pop up, most likely the one that buys out the Playstation brand. More would spring up to replace them.
 
eShop, PSN and XBox Live are also completely different services.
Steam, GOG, and Origin are all different services, but all do fine despite being operated from the same hardware.

Frankly, in a 1-console future - expect the Playstation, XBox, and Nintendo brands to remain exclusively through digital distrubution systems.
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
A think a part of it, is that Nintendo is one of the few things that really ties all of gaming back to it's 80's origins. The embarrassing awkward years, when the medium was nothing more than an expensive toy, something that kids wasted their time on. It had all the artistic integrity of a Saturday morning cartoon.

As the industry evolves, we've felt a very clear desire to break that stereotype. A great deal of people still believe that games are exclusively for kids, or kids in adult bodies. If we want to be respected, every tie back to our origins needs to be destroyed. Nintendo is one of those ties, and it's one of the strongest. Millions of moms still refer to their kid's (or husband's) XBox or PS3 as a "Nintendo". In the mainstream eye, gaming means Nintendo, and Nintendo means children's toy.

It's a mass case of low self esteem that plagues the entire gaming community, and in a way, it's shameful. We're no longer users the pastime of children, filled with wonder at the creativity and positivity of life. Now we're the angsty teenager listening to death metal and swearing at our parents.. We have a deep need to prove ourselves to the outside world - our games are grittier, darker, and more "Mature" than ever before. We aren't kids anymore, yet we're proving it in a completely immature manner.

As the medium, and the community grows older - we'll learn to accept our past. We'll see Nintendo with open eyes, and accept them as a vital core of gaming.


Of course, that's just how I see it.

Hopefully that will be the case. I'll just leave this infinitely useful quote here:
C.S. Lewis said:
Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
 
Steam, GOG, and Origin are all different services, but all do fine despite being operated from the same hardware.

Frankly, in a 1-console future - expect the Playstation, XBox, and Nintendo brands to remain exclusively through digital distrubution systems.

But then, you still have multi-platform model, even if it's digital. Are Steam, GOG, and Origin games interchangeable? Can you use features of the former on the latter?
 

mdtauk

Member
Microsoft lost tonnes of money for years.

Sony has been making losses on and off through the PSP & PS3 lifetime.

Nintendo makes one loss in 20 years as their current console comes to the end of it's life.
 
A single platform could be a reality if all of the important publishers and manufacturers agreed the standards, but as with DVD (toshiba) and blu ray (sony), consortiums are always led in such a way that interested parties will fight amongst themselves. What I think you are failing to recognise is that not everybody wants another multimedia hub, not everyone wants another dual shock, some people are prepared to pay $599 and a lot more are not. Some people embrace new ideas in interface, others want more of what they already know. Some people want their games to be like films, some people want their games to be like playgrounds. If the market wanted one product, we'd have one product. Instead, the industry has ballooned and we have all sorts of different kinds of software and hardware co-existing and doing very well. This is how it should be, to my mind at least.

You raise a good point. A single platform would remove the royalty structure that has helped to subsidize hardware prices. Consoles would increase in price by a large margin..
 

fernoca

Member
We rarely see such an assertion regarding Sony or Microsoft's first-party lineup, so why through Nintendo's successes or failures, do such discussions continue to persist?
Speaking from personal experience (and not just forum posts, but knowing/taking to said people :p); it basically comes down to they liking Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokémon; but they don't want to buy Nintendo hardware for it. They want the "I just collected all piece of the Triforce - 30G" on their Xbox 360 gamercards. There's also still strong stigma of kiddy, childish games, "not aimed at me", etc. and the constant wishing of Nintendo games to be more like games from other developers.

Which kinda leads to the second question...

Mama Robotnik said:
Secondary question: Are there some common misconception(s) that lead to these doomed/third party ideas, that if nipped in the bud, would reduce the persistence of the assertions?
In many cases it comes down to just ignorance.
Even with the success of the Wii and the DS, to them it wasn't an actual success and more of "casual gamers" buying that hardware to play "non-games".

Yet, they champion the success of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation "for hardcore gamers" when it's those same causals that they darn and hate and bought Wiis; the ones that drove said success of those "hardcore games". Call of Duty, Halo, Resident Evil, even a JRPGs like Final Fantasy or something like Skyrim been teased for the first time on the VGAs a show that "hardcore gamers" hate every year. All become story success and sold millions because they broke into the mainstream audience, and this "casuals" that would've otherwise ignored said games; got them.

To both questions, there's also a point that others in previous threads and over the net has mentioned: many of this gamers, started gaming during the PlayStation years; which is not bad; quite great actually. But to some of them PlayStation meaning games, meaning cool, and how the Nintendo 64 and then GameCube struggled with their Marios and Zeldas and Pokémons back then...Nintendo "winning" over the last years is alarming. Seeing "waggle controls on the PS3" and people jumping to Kinect is the evidence that "they won". It's something that they didn't experienced back on the NES or even the SNES; so Nintendo "winning" is something that happened for the first time and something that shouldn't happen again.

Lets not forget how even on this forums some say that the Wii lost, because the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined sold more; so that alone is evidence that the Wii lost to "HD gaming". :p
 
A single platform could be a reality if all of the important publishers and manufacturers agreed the standards, but as with DVD (toshiba) and blu ray (sony), consortiums are always led in such a way that interested parties will fight amongst themselves. What I think you are failing to recognise is that not everybody wants another multimedia hub, not everyone wants another dual shock, some people are prepared to pay $599 and a lot more are not. Some people embrace new ideas in interface, others want more of what they already know. Some people want their games to be like films, some people want their games to be like playgrounds. If the market wanted one product, we'd have one product. Instead, the industry has ballooned and we have all sorts of different kinds of software and hardware co-existing and doing very well. This is how it should be, to my mind at least.

Very few people care about console GUIs or controllers. They care about games. There's no reason the same people who play Wii Sports couldn't play on the same console as people who only play "gamer" games. It may require peripherals, rather than using the standard controller, but that is a concept that already exists in the standard model. I just don't see what is offered by having 3 games systems out on the market, doing mostly the same thing. If anything letting multiple companies make standardised hardware would encourage prices to go down and interfaces to become the primary thing driving sales.
 
You raise a good point. A single platform would remove the royalty structure that has helped to subsidize hardware prices. Consoles would increase in price by a large margin..

I reckon everything would increase in price by a large margin. And they'd use some excuse, like the multitude of companies operating under one console require increased funds, but in honesty they'll make any old shit up.

Look at Nintendo stating they believe digital downloads are the same value as physical games, when that's pretty much a bare faced lie.
 
Steam, GOG, and Origin are all different services, but all do fine despite being operated from the same hardware.

Frankly, in a 1-console future - expect the Playstation, XBox, and Nintendo brands to remain exclusively through digital distrubution systems.

Why? Why keep the frustration of all these different accounts, these different levels of service, different pricing schemes for the same old games?

Why do we have multiple social networks when it'd be just great if everyone could unite under the same banner? After all, music and movies are that way!

Why do we have to deal with upstarts like Vimeo and blip.tv? Why are Hulu and Netflix separate? You don't have to buy different ebook formats!
 

Alrus

Member
If you're that far removed from reality it's not worth my bother responding to you. Remember me when your Nintendo fantasy bubble bursts and the tears are streaming down your cheeks, since I was such a big deal for you.

Err, everything he said is true though.

Edit: Well the 3DS one is a bit of a stretch, as it wasn't overexpensive anymore, and it didn't really outpace the DS everywhere (plus the DS really exploded when the lite came out).
 
But then... you wouldn't have one machine, undermining your argument.

And even if the thing you play your movies on is the same, the film industry is still driven by difference, hundreds of different studios. You want them to merge too, you dirty communist?
.

I'm not saying we need to shove EA and Activition together - the software producers aren't the problem here.

And while you'd have multiple machines, any one of them could play any game in the world. That's the point. It's not a single-console future, where JUST Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft rules like a king. It's a future where everyone makes games to the same hardware standard. That hardware standard could be improved as technology grows, again - like PC gaming.
 

rpmurphy

Member
Being a publicly-traded company, the financial state and speculation of Nintendo is a big thing, so the whole "Nintendo is doomed" stuff is a natural point of discussion. Nintendo going third party partly comes from that area, partly from consumers who don't want to buy Nintendo systems.
 

Speevy

Banned
Very few people care about console GUIs or controllers. They care about games. There's no reason the same people who play Wii Sports couldn't play on the same console as people who only play "gamer" games. It may require peripherals, rather than using the standard controller, but that is a concept that already exists in the standard model. I just don't see what is offered by having 3 games systems out on the market, doing mostly the same thing. If anything letting multiple companies make standardised hardware would encourage prices to go down and interfaces to become the primary thing driving sales.

Let's say three consoles sell (combined) 120 million units.

Would you expect this megaplatform to sell the same or more?
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
I think if you asked film makers if they'd like to go back to the time when every studio wasn't owned by a media conglomerate, they'd say yes in a heart beat. But the video game industry seems like it wants that to happen as fast as possible, and they're willing to lose the actual video game companies along the way to make it happen. It's weird.

Nintendo didn't exactly play ball with others in its past, so there's that lingering about. They're getting better, but still not the easiest to work with. We'll see how it goes with the Wii U.
 

jman2050

Member
Very few people care about console GUIs or controllers. They care about games. There's no reason the same people who play Wii Sports couldn't play on the same console as people who only play "gamer" games. It may require peripherals, rather than using the standard controller, but that is a concept that already exists in the standard model. I just don't see what is offered by having 3 games systems out on the market, doing mostly the same thing. If anything letting multiple companies make standardised hardware would encourage prices to go down and interfaces to become the primary thing driving sales.

That's cute, you somehow think that prices will go down once effective competition is eliminated in a certain market space.

I'm sure you enjoyed spending $20 on music CDs before the iTunes era came along.
 
Let's say three consoles sell (combined) 120 million units.

Would you expect this megaplatform to sell the same or more?

Less, as surely a significant percentage of gamers own more than one console.


That's cute, you somehow think that prices will go down once effective competition is eliminated in a certain market space.

I'm sure you enjoyed spending $20 on music CDs before the iTunes era came along.


I think the pc gaming market is a good example of how a unified platform can allow for better pricing. Steam, Origin, GOG, and Amazon offer deep discounts, and self published/indie games offer incredible sales as well.


And itunes didn't change music pricing, piracy did.
 
I think what people are doing is looking at the immediate benefit of having a single system; ALL the games, sure. That's a great benefit. Anybody that wouldn't want that is a moron.

But there are many downsides, price as I've mentioned, but just the general quality. You'd have Sony/Microsoft/Sony IP under one banner, but they'd fight brutally to gain dominance under that banner. And games would get ignored, particularly smaller games, moreso than they do now.
 
Let's say three consoles sell (combined) 120 million units.

Would you expect this megaplatform to sell the same or more?

I don't know. I imagine prices would fall quicker and the console cycles would probably last longer, so sales would be strong in that sense, but you'd also imagine of those 120 million there's people with more than one machine, so the total userbase is smaller.
 

Coolwhip

Banned
That's cute, you somehow think that prices will go down once effective competition is eliminated in a certain market space.

I'm sure you enjoyed spending $20 on music CDs before the iTunes era came along.

Are android phones or tablets all overly expensive (maybe they are but there is a lot of competition)? A standard in console gaming doesn't mean there is just one console.
 

mdtauk

Member
As nice as a Single Console Platform seems now, where will the impetus come from to innovate, keep prices low, upgrade the base specs, maintaining the level of Hardware quality if the platform is licensed out! etc
 
That's cute, you somehow think that prices will go down once effective competition is eliminated in a certain market space.

I'm sure you enjoyed spending $20 on music CDs before the iTunes era came along.

You don't understand what I'm proposing. I'm not saying "Buy The Playstation!" I'm saying treat games consoles like PCs and DVD players. Have standardised tech that people have to meet, and let anyone create the hardware. That business can't possibly result in prices being fixed at a high price.
 

aeolist

Banned
Nintendo haters are all secretly desperate to play Nintendo games but want to see them humbled and forced to make games for Sony-sama first
 
You said there was more, and you provided one example. One single, solitary example.

It's like saying Idaho produces more potatoes than any other location on earth and linking a photo of one Idaho potato farm as proof.

You honestly believe that there's "one single solitary example" in this board about MS doomspeak? Honestly? You really honest to goodness believe this is reality, and that I factually can't find any others?

My friend, keep living in your dreamworld. God knows how many adventures you have there.
 
A one console future will always be impossible, simply because it will always be possible for one group to add value via some technology that is not yet standardized.

Let's say we have a one handheld future. Nintendo, Sony, Apple, Google, manufacturers all agree that the current situation is BS and we need to come together. All handhelds are also phones, they all have big capacitive touch screens.

Except some people really want to play good quality handheld games with the precision of buttons, and buttons are not part of the standard because the average consumer doesn't need that bulk in their pocket. So one company decides to branch out and carves a niche, producing games that only work on their button system. Eventually another company decides the first shouldn't have a monopoly there and starts competing.

Even if everyone in the world is totally happy with the standard, you'll have companies like Leapster who see value in entering the handheld market at a much lower price point targeting a specific (young) audience.

In a one console future initially devoid of something like Kinect, why wouldn't one major player try to corner the market on that technology?
 

MisterHero

Super Member
Considering how 95% of the time people are simply talking out of pure conjecture (that's essentially what gaming boards are, pure conjecture), nearly everything IS a matter of opinion. Hell, most of the time when people say it's not a matter of opinion, guess what? It IS a matter of opinion.

Gamers never have and never will know the exact intricacies of exactly what's going on on the inside of these companies. It's all 5% facts and 95% personal opinions and subjectivity. Doomspeak is doomspeak is doomspeak. Saying one doomspeak is less doomspeak-y than this other doomspeak because here's-some-subjective-reasons-as-to-why-but-I'm-going-to-say-they're-facts doesn't change anything.

Vita is already failing? = WiiU is going to crash and burn? = MS's focus on Kinect is going to kill them?
Considering the amounts of wild speculation inherent to video game forums, the above statements are all equally untrue. Let's not go around tooting which ones are more "valid" because if we're going by that objective metric, none of them are. They're simply stepping stones for people to express their opinions and debate about them. Almost nothing in forums is hard fact or we wouldn't have 10-page debates every other topic.
To get this out of the way, I don't really like it when people doomspeak Nintendo, so I don't do it for the others. I'm talking about things that have happened, NOT putting forth conjecture derived from forums. I'm not making any claims about their futures.

It's not Vita's fault that Sony is where they are. It's the losses from with PS3 that caused them so much trouble. Like Dreamcast was a great console, but Sega's past mistakes caught up to them. Though I'm biased and would like to see it go away, it was probably the most balanced product they could produce, for what they want it to do. Based on successes by balanced hardware in the past, Vita has a chance.

Sony won't be like Sega with so many mistakes (rather, just one really big mistake), but they don't have an infinite source of capital either. If they were doing fine, a massive restructuring wouldn't be necessary.

These are 2 things that helped Nintendo when they weren't in 1st Place: they still sold tons ton of software and they had the portable market all to themselves. They profited every year. With PS3, PSP, and somewhat mediocre game sales (considering rising production costs), it's a bit harder to find redeeming qualities to their approach to the games industry. Vita might be in the right direction though?

Going back to the thread topic, Sony's current situation is what frustrates people like Nintendo fans. Nintendo is doing far better, and yet, they're the ones still in the dog house.
 
Really, the ridiculous "one console, one people, ONE SOUL HUH HOO HAH" impetus will only become a fraction of a reality when either Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft go third party/cease to make consoles. Then we will see that as a possible reality. Unless of course, another console manufacturer pops up.

But let's see the likelihood...

Microsoft - No matter how much money it's video games division loses, Microsoft is not short of money to pump into it. At all.

Sony - Could go bankrupt, the most likely one to actually (despite what you'd believe), but most likely a bigger company would buy out the Playstation brand and continue making it under another single banner.

Nintendo - Cancel the funeral, they're fine. You'll have to continue to make do with your apparently excellent range of iPhone titles unfortunately.
 

Speevy

Banned
I don't know. I imagine prices would fall quicker and the console cycles would probably last longer, so sales would be strong in that sense, but you'd also imagine of those 120 million there's people with more than one machine, so the total userbase is smaller.

Well I don't know either. Okay, let's take a step back.

Tell me, would your average game sell more or less on a single platform? Like, say both Uncharted AND Gears were released on the system. What about smaller games, like Journey AND Fez?

Would the market just eat it all up, or would there need to be some kind of heavily controlled release spacing?

And what of developers? What happens when the unemployment rate of developers spikes because they can't change jobs easily enough? Multiple platforms do create more jobs, you know.
 

legend166

Member
Nintendo didn't exactly play ball with others in its past, so there's that lingering about. They're getting better, but still not the easiest to work with. We'll see how it goes with the Wii U.

Oh yeah, absolutely. There's no doubt that Nintendo didn't exactly do the best job endearing themselves to the rest of the industry.

I guess the point I was trying to make though is that who would you rather have as a leader in the industry - a video game company who needs a thriving market to survive (not specifically Nintendo as it exists right now, but in general), or a humongous tech company who would barely see any impact to their bottom line if the entire industry were to collapse. Everyone seems to want the latter, which I just find odd.
 
Between 1982 and 2002, we got the Atari 5200, Famicom/NES, Master System, Atari 7800, Turbografx/PCE, Genesis/Megadrive, Super Nintendo, Neo Geo, CDi, Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn, PlayStation, Nintendo 64, Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, GameCube, and Xbox.

And that's leaving out a good dozen other systems and transgenerational addons.

Music and movies are nowhere near as dynamic as games. It will be decades before a baseline "standard" that most game makers would be satisfied with for 10+ years is even reached.
 
Obviously their games and controllers are not for everyone which is fair enough, but on the topic of gaming; Nintendo are the biggest innovators. And innovators are always going to be doubted.
 
What makes you so sure the selection bias is in everyone who sees more 'nintendo should go third party' posts than for either MS or Sony rather than in yourself for not seeing them?

The empirical test would, of course, be to actually collate those threads for each company, and then count the statistical distribution.

Or you know, just shout people down as fanboys stating opinions as facts and don't check the data instead. Whatever, no biggy.

Or you know, you're being completely disingenuous in your "conclusion" there.

The very notion that I have to "prove" that MS and Sony get just as much doomspeak in the forum than Nintendo is completely ridiculous. I've given one an "off the top of my head", current instance that exemplifies this. Under what counsel was it decided that I was to procure this "empirical test" lest my proposal be dismissed as "conjecture"? The reality is that you simply don't want to accept it and simply request ridiculous "analyses" to "prove" shit that is already obvious.
 
Bolding your point on a message board is so rude.

tumblr_m054w8sAlv1rqf8sho1_500.gif


Ruffians.
 
Very few people care about console GUIs or controllers. They care about games. There's no reason the same people who play Wii Sports couldn't play on the same console as people who only play "gamer" games. It may require peripherals, rather than using the standard controller, but that is a concept that already exists in the standard model. I just don't see what is offered by having 3 games systems out on the market, doing mostly the same thing. If anything letting multiple companies make standardised hardware would encourage prices to go down and interfaces to become the primary thing driving sales.

As one poster has rightly brought up, software royalties currently help subsidize hardware costs and R&D - so in the instance where not only the manufacturers, but developers and gamers are split over what hardware and input methods are best, a single format removes the market forces keeping prices low: it removes choice, and represents only one market. Currently publishers and developers can think about which platforms and audiences best suit their wares... Sometimes its all of them. Sometimes its a Nintendo platform. Or a Sony / Microsoft platform. Sometimes they can improve their reach and exposure by inking an exclusivity deal. Having multiple hardware vendors interested in their needs gives the best of them both power and influence. All that goes away under a single platform. The only time they get to have any influence on the hardware, its cost, its audience, its interface and its reach after that is the next time the consortia meet to refresh the standard. Multiple platforms represent multiple markets, markets that refresh and renew on an unsynchronised timetable. If they lose out on the launch window of one machine, they can still benefit from one, two or even three or four launches after that. With fresh new ideas as scant as they are and the pressures as great as they are, I think publishers and developers need the upheaval and renewal that competitive new machines bring. There is no comparable media industry to this... I do think we'll see tech driven consolidation eventually, but it will be because of innovations like OnLive... Not because people can't stomach Nintendo making appreciably different games for appreciably different hardware at an appreciably different cost!
 
Top Bottom