Support NeoGAF

[AlternativeUlster]

Makes sense even especially with Reggie talking about their successful bridge games.

 

[Quasar]

Right, core gamers stopped caring about Mario and Zelda games :lol :lol

Well thats true for all the core gamers I know. But then they were all computer rather than console gamers from the start so they never cared about Mario or Zelda.

 

[Meesh]

That's a really good read, thoroughly enjoyed. Seriously. Many of us could see the "super gens" for some time now...it's part of what made guessing what the Wiimote was fun before it launched. I agree with you for the most part, but the enthusiast gamer (or core gamer) share that becomes blue once more...I just don't see happening. Don't get me wrong, I kinda like the theory, it's great sci-fi (especially: "prototype parallax barrier display" I'm gonna use that somewhere! ) but I think ultimately is unrealistic.

That's okay because I have some unreal predictions of my own I have a gut feeling that If anything, the core gamer pie piece will become bigger, bloodier, messier, a no mans land...secretly I fear the overall state of the industry will become over saturated and fall apart; unable to sustain itself with the drive for more, faster, harder, better, me toos, shovels of shitware and finally collapse. I think things will fold, similar to Nintendos misjudged and proud steps into the sinking 64 era, the game industry is stubbornly headed for a flood of software on consoles that have too much in common. Without commercial diversity for the average consumer to really tell them apart, we'll be sitting squarely on exclusive first party games. But with so much software to choose from(mostly the same), is anyone going to care? It'll come down to price, and who knows if that'll be enough.

Like I said, a secret fear(not so secret now), but hey, I'm paranoid by nature.

 

[USC-fan]

Right, core gamers stopped caring about Mario and Zelda games :lol :lol

yeah when i was 11 and bought a sega...

 

[Dresden]

Well thats true for all the core gamers I know. But then they were all computer rather than console gamers from the start so they never cared about Mario or Zelda.

So what you're saying is that people who were never interested in Mario still isn't interested in Mario. Damn son, that's some revelation.

 

[OnPoint]

Good write up Chit. I've thought this myself, but never bothered to write it out. I see now that was a foolish maneuver.

 

[GregLombardi]

Fantastic write up. I think you nailed the larger issues, though the devil with Nintendo is always in the details, and it is really really hard to predict those details because not only do you have to predict Nintendo, but you have to predict their competitors as well.

Nice write up, thanks!

 

[Buckethead]

Good write up, I agree with a lot of points.
Someone pointed out earlier, Nintendo trolled Sony and Microsoft hard todayand it was absolutely glorious. :lol

So many awesome titles, too bad I'm not into/don't have time for portables.

 

[Quadrangulum]

yeah when i was 11 and brought a sega...

facepalm.jpg

I'm not surprised however.

 

[Meesh]

Someone pointed out earlier, Nintendo trolled Sony and Microsoft hard todayand it was absolutely glorious. :lol

They did? what points exactly?

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

Disruptive UI/control innovations come only once in 10 years
- Developing a truly paradigm shifting UI happens only once in 10 years due to the time it takes to experiment, concept, iterate, test and develop games
- See: soft key UI, touch UI in phones
- Market needs time to diffuse the innovations before new ones

I disagree here. phones are not computers are not game machines. all these things have subtly different control schemes because they do different things.

how long has the control scheme for cars remained the same? there were a few different attempts in the early days with levers and things before everyone settled on the same basic steering wheel/pedal system. it has remained the same for roughly 100 years. will it ever change? possibly, but probably not in our lifetimes.

cell phones specifically are versions of the devices used in the home to communicate with others, but adapted for mobile use. because of this different usage model a new control scheme is required. mobile phones are much newer and still a work in progress, unlike the car.

the control scheme for game machines hasn't changed drastically for the past oh, lets call it 4 decades. there have been refinements and enhancements, but we're all still basically playing with the 1970s pong controller. it's wireless now, has more buttons, vibrates a bit, but these are all ancillary refinements to a system that has remained fundamentally the same. even the Wii is basically a very refined version of the Pong controller. I don't see a drastically different system taking hold, especially not in our lifetimes.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Personally i think Nintendo is attempting to upstream casual gamers into more "core" orientated gamers. Essentially create a whole generation of gamers who love and adore nintendo's franchises.

Giving the current "core" gamers a lot of nice games is but a side-effect of what they're trying to do. Remember they're trying to expand the gaming audience and they're trying to make this expansion as Nintendo-orientated as possible to lock out their competitors.

That's certainly possible. Nintendo mentioned a few times in their conference that they got new people into gaming, now they want to graduate them to "bridge" titles like Wii Party, etc. Only logical to assume that the next step is to get people playing those more traditional experiences. But with the Nintendo brand firmly planted in their heads.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

so what happened since the N64? I love nintendo as much as the next guy, but there decisions on hardware and online strategy have killed them.

to me Nintendo = handhelds these days

 

[USC-fan]

facepalm.jpg

I'm not surprised however.

 

[miksar]

In case of Super Wii, advanced graphics just won't be enough. Of course, they'll have to be on par with Sony's and MS's future output if Nintendo wants any reasonable 3rd party support, but the point is that it won't be such an easy victory this time. Nin will have to come up with a strong selling point, some sort of "3D without glasses" equivalent for home consoles for it to have as much success as Wii. And after mocking glasses on the E3-conference they'll probably have to wait until 3DTVs without the need of them are mass market.

 

[NinjaTehFish]

Nice writeup. I think you're right for the most part, Im not sure about the whole "Core market becomes new blue ocean" thing, only because I doubt Sony/MS (or Nintendo) will neglect the core market that much for that to happen. The market is expanding, not shifting.

Regardless, its become very evident that the videogame industry does experience a "paradigm shift" every 10 years in terms of control input, and I agree that the following generation is then a refinement of that control input with expansions in terms of graphics and game design. It is control input and game design that drive the industry, not graphics. In the 90s, gaming saw a revolution when the design entered 3D spaces, which was dependent on more powerful technology/graphics. However, the latest revolution, motion controls, did not require this. So Nintendo was able to make a new input standard without a big graphical update.

And thats how they reclaimed the market. Really, Nintendo has touted the importance of innovation for years, but it was the touch screen in the DS and the motion controls on the Wii that caused them to regain market share. If they hadn't been bold and innovative and gone forward with these new control mediums, then they wouldn't be dominating the handheld and console sectors right now. But they are. Nintendo didn't just develop the latest paradigm shift, they standardized them with how much they sold. There is now absolutely zero doubt that Nintendo's Revolution was successful, with Sony and Microsoft now putting so much focus on motion control and "family games". And with those two playing catch up with what are basically very similar products, Nintendo should control the market for the forseeable future (the next 3 years at least).

I'm willing to bet Nintendo will launch its next console around 2012 and before the others, like you said. MS and Sony are putting so much effort and money into Natal and Move that if anything, this generation for them is at its halfway point, not nearing completion. If Wii2 gains a lot of steam right off the bat, Nintendo could dominate the market for much, much longer. The only disadvantage they have is that since Sony/MS are both playing the same game, there's two consoles at that track and only one on Nintendo's alternate track. Along with the reputation for third party sales on Nintendo platforms, I feel like third parties may still gravitate towards the other consoles. That may change though, since 3DS already has amazing third party support, and Wii2 could follow. And when developers start realizing that control input is the driving force, not graphics, the whole industry model for western development might shift.

Sony, in my opinion, has the ability to become the definitive "number two" of this generation. Move may be a Wiiremote knockoff, but its a pretty good one at that. Its as good, if not better than Wii Motion plus, and I think gamers will embrace it more than connect, especially the HD shooters using the device. It also seems to have more game design potential than a button-less camera. Not only that, but Sony has a much bigger first party catalog to draw from than Microsoft, in 2011 and beyond they seem to have quite a catalog coming up. Not to mention Blu-Ray, which is getting more popular as HD consoles become cheaper.

Microsoft on the other hand, has had 2 big things in their favor this gen. The smartest thing they did was to launch first, in 2005. The second thing, which was lucky, was that it took Sony forever to get the PS3 off the ground. They were a bit too bold with their pricepoint, and thus had a very slow start. With MS having a bigger installbase early on, they were seen as the go-to console for third party games, and still are in many ways. Call of Duty has seen huge success at launch (when it outsold all of MS' first party titles), and ever since. Modern Warfare was huge. MW2 was even bigger. Now the Call of Duty franchise is bigger than Halo and Gears, MS' big guns. And therein lies the problem- on the first party front, the only thing really driving sales is Gears and Halo- the guns. Fable, Forza, and Crackdown are playing supporting roles, but really they have two big franchises, and third party stuff. And with the Gears trilogy wrapping up and Bungie moving on, what will MS do after mid-2011? No wonder they made a deal w/Activision pertaining to the CoD franchise. Microsoft has lost many of its first party partners (Bungie, Bioware, Bizzarre). Epic is still a partner for now, and theyve got Rare and Lionhead but thats not much. Developers like Mistwalker and Team Ninja have moved on to work on other consoles. I guess they could make new partners (like the Crytek Warrior game) but so much of their future success seems to rest on Kinect. And im not convinced it will be that successful.

Honestly, the biggest thing Sony or MS could really do to take back market share from Nintendo would be to come up with and push the next paradigm control shift, the next Revolution. MS put all their money on online, which is changing the market and gaming, but not expanding it like motion controls are. Sony pushed HOME (social networking) but that hasnt had the impact they hoped. Little Big Planet's user content and Forza 4's driving controls seem like the most promising things they have on the horizon. But really, I think they'll have to wait until next or nextnext gen. Good software, price drops, and good marketing will help Sony/MS, but we're living in Nintendo's world for the forseeable future.

This was a great little read so im quoting it for excellence,,,,,Read this people

 

[Relix]

Nintendo is run by geniuses. Really. They noticed the industry going into crash status soon, so they started with this "casual" approach which attracted MILLIONS of people to video games. New, old, even core. They kept dishing a few titles for hardcore gamers while also appealing to some masses (Galaxy is a great example) while also keeping some hardcore titles (Prime, TP, etc). Now they are in the next step of their plan... Side Scrollers. There's a reason why Nintendo is going back to roots and 3 of the games they showed are side scrollers. They are easy to pick and those casual gamers a big part of them will move to these games. A big hunk will evolve... and thus the Wii 2 will come to be. It's a genius plan.

EDIT: They also left competition in the dust and playing catch up. By the time their techs are released it will be stale to a big majority. Thus Nintendo denies them a win there as well.

 

[avatar299]

Nintendo will have to rely on heavily on third parties to capture that crowd.

Hence why this is a waste of time. 3rd parties will never support Nintendo consoles like the others. No matter how much they dominate.

 

[Shred0r]

So which pill will the gaming market choose in the coming years? The blue or the red one?

Beside, Sony has such a strong first-party army of tech- and visual fidelity-hungry developers that its hard to imagine that they will neglect the core gamer's needs.
Sony is aware that the most precious sort of gamers are the core gamers. And of top of it the loyal hardcore ones who identify themselfs with the Playstation brand. Sony doesnt want to piss them off for sure.

So my guess, Sony will serve the casual games market with Move (as it is/will be the trend) and still develop top-notch titles alike Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2/3 to keep the core gamers happy. Sony will never abandon making core games. So i do not see any indication that Sony might have a problematic future in the gaming market. Things look, like they are totally prepared for what will come from Nintendo's part and be able to "counter-attack" it.

But i have to give big props to Nintendo's visionary capabilities by pulling off the whole Wii-casual-games-appeal-and-some-core-game strategy/concept that proofed extremely successfull for them, considering they made profit with a sold Wii unit right off the bat while MS and Sony has to wait several years to break even with every sold unit...
Nintendo are generally the creators of money-printing entertainment devices

Move is technically very impressiver when it comes to motion devices so Sony can build on this for the future but regarding Kinect and its often mentiond lag "problems" there is yet to see if MS is prepared for the future, technology-wise. If Kinect becomes a blockbuster MS could aggressively pump the money into further motion device technologies or just try to make their next console at least more powerful than Sony's & BigN's one to bank on the graphical superiority which attracts many core gamers as a buying argument.

But i have to admit: Core gamers and tech afficionados are more attracted by groundbreaking tech then soley by a graphical upgrade. Thats the big selling point for the 3DS, not to mention it also surpasses the PSP graphics-wise and therefore beats it at its own game. Nintendo has a bright future with their mobile products, Sony has to step up the game (no pun intended ^^).

But when it comes to stationary consoles, Nintendo has to proove itself by delivering a powerful console that can keep up with what Sony and MS has to offer for the core gamer. So in my eyes the console battle is quite balanced between BigN and Sony. MS' Kinect shows potential but its not really what the core gamer wants, considering his generally high needs for a direct and precise contol of games. I could go on but that are my main thoughts...

 

[Jokeropia]

yeah when i was 11 and bought a sega...

:lol

And you don't see how you don't represent core gamers? :lol

 

[Starchasing]

3DS is a bridge device. Why?

Because real 3D makes 3D games easier.

2d screens aré a layer of abstraction for 3D games. not anymore.

 

[Vinci]

so what happened since the N64? I love nintendo as much as the next guy, but there decisions on hardware and online strategy have killed them.

True. It's easy to drown in a swimming pool filled with gold doubloons.

 

[camineet]

I cannot wait until Wii 2 is revealed next year.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Jesus fucking Christ... Free time much?

Derp derp, too much to read for me, must lash out!

The thing you are missing is the core gamer grew up and dont care about nintendo franchises games.

I mean beside the nintendo fanboy....

Living up to your username?

I disagree here. phones are not computers are not game machines. all these things have subtly different control schemes because they do different things.

how long has the control scheme for cars remained the same? there were a few different attempts in the early days with levers and things before everyone settled on the same basic steering wheel/pedal system. it has remained the same for roughly 100 years. will it ever change? possibly, but probably not in our lifetimes.

cell phones specifically are versions of the devices used in the home to communicate with others, but adapted for mobile use. because of this different usage model a new control scheme is required. mobile phones are much newer and still a work in progress, unlike the car.

the control scheme for game machines hasn't changed drastically for the past oh, lets call it 4 decades. there have been refinements and enhancements, but we're all still basically playing with the 1970s pong controller. it's wireless now, has more buttons, vibrates a bit, but these are all ancillary refinements to a system that has remained fundamentally the same. even the Wii is basically a very refined version of the Pong controller. I don't see a drastically different system taking hold, especially not in our lifetimes.

Holy shit, we get car analogies and the "all games are pong" argument in one post. Awesome. :lol

 

[AzureNightmare]

Well thats true for all the core gamers I know. But then they were all computer rather than console gamers from the start so they never cared about Mario or Zelda.

Sounds like they're losing interest in gaming period. No gamer in their right minds would quietly dismiss a zelda or mario game or call it irrelevant.

 

[truly101]

Hence why this is a waste of time. 3rd parties will never support Nintendo consoles like the others. No matter how much they dominate.

But 3rd parties have historically supported Nintendo when they dominate, just look at the NES, SNES, GB, GBA and DS libraries. There is a bunch of Wii 3rd party support too, its just that the games either don't sell well or aren't very good. But they're there.

 

[Vinci]

But 3rd parties have historically supported Nintendo when they dominate, just look at the NES, SNES, GB, GBA and DS libraries. There is a bunch of Wii 3rd party support too, its just that the games either don't sell well or aren't very good. But they're there.

The Wii 3rd party support has been an abomination from the start, so what you just said is patently untrue. Yes, it's had some titles that were good from 3rd parties - but lets not blow these scant offerings out of proportion. It's the market leader. It's had shit support.

Even the DS's support has been... scattered.

The 3DS's possible launch lineup could very well show 3rd parties aren't quite so anti-Nintendo as people assumed, but lets not rewrite recent history here.

 

[hellclerk]

I respectfully disagree, if only because you're bifurcating the market inappropriately. The "casual" and "core" markets aren't separate oceans, but rather simply two (poorly defined) super-demographics of the same ocean. Nintendo's goal is not to throw their net into one part or the other, but rather to make their net large enough to sweep the whole ocean, blue or red. Your assumptions on Nintendo's vision of the larger market make me question the validity of a standardize-supersize-revolution waltz from Nintendo's marketing strategy. I suspect the next Nintendo console, while backwards compatible with Wii games and controllers, will be something largely unexpected and unknown in terms of interface and design, because they NEED to stay one step ahead.

 

[gerg]

As I said in the "So No New Home Consoles Unit 2012 (or 2013)?" thread, launching first may actually be a very strategic move for Nintendo. While the Wii's at 70+ million consoles already, and while it without fail hit 100 million units sold, I can't see it matching the PS2's lifetime sales. Perhaps the 3DS' launch will be a test for this (in regards to the DS), but unlike the PS2 I don't think the Wii will have an extended life long after the launch of the Wii2.

So, if Nintendo can garner very good third-party support for the console's launch, and as long as they can leapjump the 360 and the PS3 graphically and technically, it wouldn't surprise me to see them launch the Wii2 in Holiday 2011 (in Japan). I struggle to think that Microsoft or Sony would be anywhere near prepared for that.

Edit: But, then again, the Dreamcast also launched ahead of its competitors.

 

[schuelma]

So, if Nintendo can garner very good third-party support for the console's launch, and as long as they can leapjump the 360 and the PS3 graphically and technically, it wouldn't surprise me to see them launch the Wii2 in Holiday 2011 (in Japan). I struggle to think that Microsoft or Sony would be anywhere near prepared for that.

Right. That's a big if, but whether through outright $$ or tying into 3DS development or whatever, if Nintendo can secure substantial 3rd party support right from the beginning it could do very well with a head start.

 

[GitarooMan]

The Wii 3rd party support has been an abomination from the start, so what you just said is patently untrue. Yes, it's had some titles that were good from 3rd parties - but lets not blow these scant offerings out of proportion. It's the market leader. It's had shit support.

Even the DS's support has been... scattered.

The 3DS's possible launch lineup could very well show 3rd parties aren't quite so anti-Nintendo as people assumed, but lets not rewrite recent history here.

But I think the wrinkle with Wii is that "dominant" is not the right word, especially for Western third parties. There is not necessarily one system but in the West the PS3/360/PC combo are a formidable competitor for third-party support. This was especially in the case early in the generation and sort of set the tone.

But now I think Nintendo is positioned with its Wii successor (which I think will hit in 2012) to do what its doing with the 3DS. They can build up way better early third-party support based on their current position and especially because the 360/PS3 likely will not have successors until after 2012, they can get the jump. In addition, assuming the new Wii is within the graphical range of these two (and I think it will be), Wii will be much more attractive for multiplatform development (especially stuff like Move/Wii cross-platform stuff, etc.)

 

[Vinci]

But I think the wrinkle with Wii is that "dominant" is not the right word, especially for Western third parties. There is not necessarily one system but in the West the PS3/360/PC combo are a formidable competitor for third-party support. This was especially in the case early in the generation and sort of set the tone.

Even with the ability to port their games between the 360, PS3, and PC, 3rd parties are doing very, very poorly this generation. There was never a competition to be had: 3rd parties, particularly Western ones, wanted to use the most expensive hardware that they could. The Wii wasn't it. It's not that the alternative was more profitable, it's that they never considered the Wii (or the DS, for that matter) in the first place.

The Wii was never going to get their support. I'm not saying this means the Wii 2 won't get support; I doubt it will, due to the prominence of online for many of these developers and their unwillingness to go for anything but high-end.

In addition, assuming the new Wii is within the graphical range of these two (and I think it will be), Wii will be much more attractive for multiplatform development (especially stuff like Move/Wii cross-platform stuff, etc.)

The 3DS doesn't encourage multiplatform support to the PSP even though they're not graphically that far apart. Why would the Wii's successor? Nintendo doesn't want that, IMO; they want exclusivity. They may never get it, but that's what they want.

 

[gerg]

Given that Nintendo leapfrogs the 360 and the PS3, would it be feasible for both Microsoft and Sony to say "OK, have your fun, in a year's time we'll launch our super-duper 720 and PS4"? Would such a graphical increase be feasible? I don't think so. Despite launching so early, why did the Dreamcast fail so quickly? Was it too expensive at launch?

In any case, Nintendo is certainly in a very unfavourable position here. My mental image of Microsoft and Sony is like Oceania and Eurasia - they benefit the most from perpetuating the 360 and the PS3 for as long as possible. I don't think the Wii can maintain as much steam for as long.

Edit: Stupid me. DVD player. Got it.

 

[GitarooMan]

The 3DS doesn't encourage multiplatform support to the PSP even though they're not graphically that far apart. Why would the Wii's successor? Nintendo doesn't want that, IMO; they want exclusivity. They may never get it, but that's what they want.

With handheld maybe, because they can feasibly dominate that sphere (at least in the near term) but I can't see them sticking to their old ways with third parties on consoles, it's been one of the few things that has held them back from complete dominance.

They can be even more dominant with strong third-party support along with their first-party stable, but I don't think they'll get it unless they make it easier for devs to go multi-plat with them (especially in the sense that they can use their existing graphic engines). The kind of hubris that expects exclusivity is what has gotten them into trouble in the past. While they are in a strong position now, it could be even stronger if they could somehow get some of that major third-party support coming their way and I think making multi-platform development more feasible is the most realistic way to do it.

 

[UncleSporky]

The games unveiled don't look designed with 3D in mind and it will only provide initial "wow" and a sales point, but is hard to market. Looking at the game lineup, it looks obvious that Nintendo was planning a "Super generation" all along, then saw a prototype parallax barrier display and decided to throw it in for a brilliant marketing story. This might have happened in the timeframe of a year, while games have been underway for longer. All of the marketing is very hardcore oriented, compared to the Wii launch, for example.

This is BS.

Why would devs be so quick to port games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory to it, if not because they think they can recapture attention due to 3D? A port like that would be considered pretty lame if it didn't have 3D.

I think it's obvious that Nintendo showed the 3D to devs first, which got them on board.

Nintendo didn't make the jump to 3D as a snap decision - interviews confirm they've been working on 3D for a long time across several generations.

"We tried making 3D with the Virtual Boy. We also tried it several other times but it didn't work," said Iwata.

"Every time we've released a new hardware system we've tried something with 3D."

Miyamoto added: "We always doubted if people would buy it, would it only work on certain people's TVs? We always had these doubts."

"Once the Mario games moved into 3D it became a lot more difficult because you couldn't tell what was near or what was far. It was hard when jumping and judging height differences. One of the hardest things to do in a Mario game is jumping on a tree stump or hitting a question mark block."

The platform holder said that it was these doubts that made them explore alternative screens.

"When we started looking with LCD devices that displayed 3D, the response was 'this is better than we expected," added Miyamoto.

The Gamecube even had 3D hardware built into it that was never utilized. Escapist reported this back in February:

The Gamecube was Nintendo's console of the generation previous to the Wii. It didn't quite catch on as well as Nintendo had hoped, selling fewer units than both of its major competitors: the Xbox and the PS2.

But, it apparently had capabilities that went unused. In a third quarter financial results briefing, Satoru Iwata said: "To tell you the truth, GameCube is secretly designed to load graphical circuits which display graphics for right and left eyes respectively, for a future possibility of realizing 3D gaming experience" Nintendo already "had interest in this technology," but decided against the use of it.

In fact...this may be a coincidence, but a DS successor in 3D was rumored way back in January of 2004. This has been on their minds for a long time.

You said the games don't look like they were designed with 3D in mind, yet interviews on the Nintendo E3 site confirm that at least several devs saw the 3D first and then got to work to see what their franchises would look like.

How should these games have been designed differently in order to properly show off the 3D? What's missing?

The Kid Icarus trailer even opens up with a "wooooah, wooooah, it's coming out of the screen" scene with Medusa and her staff. How is that not intentional?

 

[[Nintex]]

I think the 3DS support can be explained easily

The PS2 is on its last legs, Wii third party games are tanking, PSP is dead in every region but Japan, Kinect doesn't look so hot, Move can be easily implemented in current games. Now Nintendo comes along with their new fancy easy to program for 3D handheld, PS2 and Wii assets can be used and Nintendo won't say no to remakes or current games with 3D upgrades. The thing will certainly sell because all the popular DS Nintendo and third party brands are on board with the 3DS. Who is crazy enough to say no to such a deal?

It remains to be seen if Nintendo can repeat the trick for their home console.

 

[schuelma]

I think the 3DS support can be explained easily

The PS2 is on its last legs, Wii third party games are tanking, PSP is dead in every region but Japan, Kinect doesn't look so hot, Move can be easily implemented in current games. Now Nintendo comes along with their new fancy easy to program for 3D handheld, PS2 and Wii assets can be used and Nintendo won't say no to remakes or current games with 3D upgrades. The thing will certainly sell because all the popular DS Nintendo and third party brands are on board with the 3DS. Who is crazy enough to say no to such a deal?

It remains to be seen if Nintendo can repeat the trick for their home console.

And also because it is the sequel to the best selling system ever introduced in Japan- look at the 3rd party list so far, the bulk of the support is from Japan who probably didn't need much convincing. Different story with the Wii.

 

[GCX]

I remember when Iwata said some years ago that getting the casual market on board with the Nintendo consoles is just the first step in their strategy. The second step was to introduce casual market to new genres outside of WiiSports, Brain Training, etc. while at the same time get new non-gamers to play with new casual titles.

I think we're getting to step 2 now. At their E3 show they blurred the line between casual and hardcore titles because they showcased the games almost in completely random order (in contrast to the MS show where they pretty much told you "YO THIS IS THE COOL HARDCORE TITLE" and "AWW THIS GAME IS FOR YOUR MOM!").

 

[gerg]

@[Nintex] As Stump said to me yesterday, a lot of the 3DS' early support may be explained by the fact that the system is very much filling the void left by the PSP (and a lack of a PSP2).

In anyway, unless someone can care to correct me, I really do think that Microsoft and Sony are actually in quite a better position than Nintendo. Not to doubt their ability to create console-pushing software, but both Microsoft and Sony have greater flexibility with pricing, unless Nintendo wants to pack yet more software with its base SKUs or start to fulfil Miyamoto's dream of a $100 home console. Ignoring the imminence of new console launch, Move will do very well for Sony for lengthening the life of the PS3. (The less said about Kinect the better.) And Nintendo won't really gain much from a console redesign either.

 

[John Rabbit]

op's theory is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. this is a capitalist society; businesses exist to make money
2. the "core gamer" demographic simply does not have the buying power of the "casual market". the numbers simply do not equate (i.e. - 10 casuals buy 5 games in one year, 1 core buys 50/year).

nintendo, like most companies, is not interested in satisfying "the core" market alone. what they are interested in is making a lot of money. to pretend otherwise is laughable.

 

[Vinci]

In anyway, unless someone can care to correct me, I really do think that Microsoft and Sony are actually in quite a better position than Nintendo. Not to doubt their ability to create console-pushing software, but both Microsoft and Sony have greater flexibility with pricing, unless Nintendo wants to pack yet more software with its base SKUs or start to fulfil Miyamoto's dream of a $100 home console. Ignoring the imminence of new console launch, Move will do very well for Sony for lengthening the life of the PS3. (The less said about Kinect the better.) And Nintendo won't really gain much from a console redesign either.

The Wii 2 is coming next year. The 3DS just guaranteed this.

 

[[Nintex]]

@[Nintex] As Stump said to me yesterday, a lot of the 3DS' early support may be explained by the fact that the system is very much filling the void left by the PSP (and a lack of a PSP2).

In anyway, unless someone can care to correct me, I really do think that Microsoft and Sony are actually in quite a better position than Nintendo. Not to doubt their ability to create console-pushing software, but both Microsoft and Sony have greater flexibility with pricing, unless Nintendo wants to pack yet more software with its base SKUs or start to fulfil Miyamoto's dream of a $100 home console. Ignoring the imminence of new console launch, Move will do very well for Sony for lengthening the life of the PS3. (The less said about Kinect the better.) And Nintendo won't really gain much from a console redesign either.

I wouldn't call it a better position, Iwata once said that he could launch the Wii 2 at any time if there was ever any need for it. MS's Xbox division and Sony have been bleeding money for years and third parties want to squeeze every last bit out of the FPS market untill the guns are coming out of our ears. Sony is planning to launch Move+PS3 for $399 so unless they start with agressive SEGA-like pricing Nintendo will keep rolling with new Wii games and the 3DS. By the end of next year we might see their new console.

Microsoft on the other hand is caught empty handed. Kinect has to be a huge hit because I don't expect them to be able to launch a new state of the art console with a strong line-up by next year. 'Services' like ESPN will help them in NA but they will see a decline in their European marketshare if they don't manage to keep up with Sony's growth there.

 

[jay]

Interesting, but you think probably too much.

After reading Nintendo Magic, I'd have to agree that he is thinking too much into this.

 

[gerg]

I wouldn't call it a better position, Iwata once said that he could launch the Wii 2 at any time if there was ever any need for it. MS's Xbox division and Sony have been bleeding money for years and third parties want to squeeze every last bit out of the FPS market untill the guns are coming out of our ears. Sony is planning to launch Move+PS3 for $399 so unless they start with agressive SEGA-like pricing Nintendo will keep rolling with new Wii games and the 3DS. By the end of next year we might see their new console.

Of course, the current position is good for nobody; my statement was only in regards to longevity: that is, I would argue that the 360 and the PS3 are much more poised for longevity than the Wii is. (And, at the risk of "lol ten-year plan lol", were it not for the competition - and, yes, this qualifier may then make this a trivial statement - I do think that Move would do wonders for the PS3's lifespan.)

But you're right that the current position is favourable for nobody, and that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, in effect, each face eachother's problems, but in reverse: Microsoft and Sony want the casual market, and Nintendo wants the core market; having ring-fenced audiences is no good for anyone.

That Microsoft and Sony want to extend their system's lifecycle so much is only the result of losing literally millions (billions?) of dollars to get where they are now. If Nintendo were to launch their next console so soon it would be at the expense of the Wii as it is, and I'm sure they'd rather sell an extra 40+ million units of the console before its successor arrives.

In any case, I'd be shocked if Sony were to launch a new console next year. Could they afford the losses?

 

[The Technomancer]

op's theory is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. this is a capitalist society; businesses exist to make money
2. the "core gamer" demographic simply does not have the buying power of the "casual market". the numbers simply do not equate (i.e. - 10 casuals buy 5 games in one year, 1 core buys 50/year).

nintendo, like most companies, is not interested in satisfying "the core" market alone. what they are interested in is making a lot of money. to pretend otherwise is laughable.

Yes, but Nintendo still wants to make games. They don't want to spend the rest of their lives making fitness games, that much they've made clear. Repeatedly. This whole generation was about casting out the net to a whole new market, and like they've said before and like they proved with this conference, the next step is to start weaning the Wii Sports crowd onto games like NSMB and Kirby.

Saying that this is a pure capitalist market about making money is exactly whats going to screw Activision in the end; Activision is making money hand over fist now, but on a completely unsustainable model. Nintendo is planning for the next decade.

And their goals are lofty, ridiculous, and maybe unrealizable, but damn, they're going to try anyway. They want video games, specifically their video games to become the cornerstone of family entertainment. They don't want a family of four passively sitting on the couch watching a movie together, they want that family of four playing Mario Kart, laughing and hurling blue shells at each other.

 

[subversus]

Decent theory, but I think it misses an important point: Nintendo the developer has never been able to capture the 'dudebro crowd'. Franchises like F-Zero, Starfox, Pikmin, etc, are loved by the actual hardcore, enthusiast crowd, but the guy who buys CoD, GTA and Madden couldn't care less.

As a typical dudebro gamer I agree with this. I've never been interested in what Nintendo is doing since 1993 (I was 10 years old kid then). I was interested only in Resident Evil series on the platform. I've never played Zelda and ummm.... forgot the title (popular sidescroller with a chick) and many other Ninty games. I know that I'm not a trully hardcore gamer and all that but no matter how enjoyable mechanics in Mario are I can't get past its "cartoonish" look. More titles like Shattered Memories and Madworld would get me on board though.


ps. I'm not trolling, I respect Nintendo and people who enjoy their games, but I really couldn't care less about what Nintendo is doing (but I read interviews with their top brass because I want to know more about how they're doing business), so forget my ignorance.

 

[MikFisher]

Interesting thoughts, but didn't really put the competition into consideration. They can be quite unpredictable too (though Microsoft and Sony have been walking into Nintendo's trap.)

i...couldn't resist.

Interesting thoughts in this topic *claps*

First , let me say this, if Nintendo had had this strategy in mind all the time , then bravo . I mean first extending the market to the casual gamers and then shift all the way back to the core gamers . Thing is now that Nintendo has a Wii settled in pretty much every household , all the great franchises will probably have a nice boost on sales .

Second, timing. Everything was very well timed , and i agree when people say that they can now launch a much powerful device capable of overthrowing both Xbox and PS3 hardware.

However , the real question is , what's the next move? ( don't mock )

Because right now, sony have almost everything it needs to succeed : a powerful device , HD , 3D , motion controls. Of course, one can argue that is the content which defines how good a device sells.
Nevertheless, what can we expect from Nintendo in the next console ? I don't see them just making a device with the same characteristics of ps3 and only more capable , visually . And also, that's never been a strategy from ninty, pushing graphics to the limit ..

 

[stuminus3]

I think all Nintendo are basically doing is pointing out the obvious... there's a whole lot more to it than one side vs the other, and pretty much everyone else is missing the point entirely.

That "casual/hardcore" bullshit? Yeah, it's bullshit. Hence the identity crisis over at Microsoft.

 

[charlequin]

Core games are the defendable niche against Apple
Prolonged cycles of Sony and MS create opportunity for offcycle leapfrog
Hibernating franchises are Nintendo's cash in the bank, in addition to cash

I agree with your entire post, and I think these, especially, are a very good point.

I'll note that this strategy actually fits very well with the strategy of technological disruption as discussed before the launch of the DS, which explicitly recommends capturing low-end customers with a new disruptive technology, then moving upmarket. Now that Nintendo have sewn up the casual market basically everywhere, they are in a unique position to move upmarket by offering a system that already has 100% perfect casual bonafides but which also offers upgrades and game franchises more oriented towards core gamers than Nintendo's previous systems.

The one thing I'd note is that the word "core" is a little overloaded here. A lot of GAF people are probably shaking their heads and going "how is the core underserved? I got eight new dudebro shooters to drool over at E3!" but basically, I think it's instructive to view casual -> core as a pyramid, with ultra-casuals at the bottom and ultra-hardcore dedicated hobbyists at the very top. Last cycle, Nintendo explicitly targeted the very bottom of the pyramid while Sony and Microsoft targeted the very top; now Nintendo is in a better position to swoop in and grab all the middle sections of the pyramid.

But yeah: 3DS is very much the PS2 to DS' PS1 and I'm hopeful it'll deliver just as strongly.

:lol :lol :lol People actually believe Nintendo tried to trap MS and Sony?

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and it tells you to read the book "What a Duck Looks Like (It's The Guy Who Told You To Read This)" in a series of public statements regarding whether or not it's a duck...

"Core" gamers, in my opinion, are mainly driven by technology. Specifically graphics-rendering technology.

This is exactly the overloaded use of the word "core" that I'm talking about. There is a segment of core gamers that are mainly driven by technology, but they're a small subset of people who consider themselves "gamers" and enjoy "core" (not casual-genre) games. The "average" core gamer enjoys shooters or platformers or RPGs, probably makes fun of Farmville and Just Dance at least a little bit, but only buys a few games a year and couldn't tell you if the PS2 was more powerful than the Xbox or not.

 

[Anerythristic]

Really good read. If Nintendo came out with HD device capable of even 360/PS3 level visuals I would be very satisfied and probably be a one console owner. I own three now.

You know what I was wondering I am of the opinion that the "gaming market" is only big enough for two. Does anybody know of any articles predicting what the market would look like as a two horse race?