-
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.
Adage.com: Nintendo Will Win Game Wars by Thinking 'Different,' Not 'Better'
- Thread starter Fatalah
- Start date
- Status
The Lillster
Banned
To be quite honest, i'm glad Nintendo did something different, even if the graphics are shit.
I owned a PS2 last gen, and a Gamecube for a small time, I hardly played the Gamecube because most of the good 3rd party games were on PS2 (Bar Tales of Symphonia).
Nintendo went for powerful hardware with the N64 and Gamecube and that didn't help them become market leader, so how would making another powerful console, competing for the same gamers help Nintendo this time?
If Nintendo did go for the 'better' hardware aproach, then I don't think they would have been as successful as they are now.
I owned a PS2 last gen, and a Gamecube for a small time, I hardly played the Gamecube because most of the good 3rd party games were on PS2 (Bar Tales of Symphonia).
Nintendo went for powerful hardware with the N64 and Gamecube and that didn't help them become market leader, so how would making another powerful console, competing for the same gamers help Nintendo this time?
If Nintendo did go for the 'better' hardware aproach, then I don't think they would have been as successful as they are now.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
The Wii sells better than Ipod. The Wii is the only fun thing ever in existence. No one is ever disappointed with their Wii purchase. Graphics aren't everything. Here's an article from the non-gaming mainstream media whom we used to ignore!
Rinse, repeat and fill up GAF with it. Every day, I swear.
As for the actual article, I agree that Nintendo's Wii is helped by being a totally different product. It is meant to be a cheap, multiplayer, social party system at its core. This allows for 360 and PS3 owners to whip it out (I passed on the pun) whenever non-gaming friends come over. Its a more modern version of whipping out some board games when non-video gamers come over. The reason is becuase it has alot of games that people tend to socialize while playing.........which is totally a software thing in reality. There is nothing that says that Sony and Microsoft can't make hit software that appeals in the same way.But marketing your console to fit that "social non-gamer image" that Ni ntendo has developed hasn't hurt them one bit and it has sold when alot of people didn't give it a chance.
I think the Wii will do well by being different, but domination? No way. No console will be a runaway hit this gen. I see it all splitting pretty evenly.
I also like how the article kind of side steps the fact that the 360 out sold the Wii the same mon th it quoted. The article clearly wants to put the Wii up against the PS3 only to make its point.
Rinse, repeat and fill up GAF with it. Every day, I swear.
As for the actual article, I agree that Nintendo's Wii is helped by being a totally different product. It is meant to be a cheap, multiplayer, social party system at its core. This allows for 360 and PS3 owners to whip it out (I passed on the pun) whenever non-gaming friends come over. Its a more modern version of whipping out some board games when non-video gamers come over. The reason is becuase it has alot of games that people tend to socialize while playing.........which is totally a software thing in reality. There is nothing that says that Sony and Microsoft can't make hit software that appeals in the same way.But marketing your console to fit that "social non-gamer image" that Ni ntendo has developed hasn't hurt them one bit and it has sold when alot of people didn't give it a chance.
I think the Wii will do well by being different, but domination? No way. No console will be a runaway hit this gen. I see it all splitting pretty evenly.
I also like how the article kind of side steps the fact that the 360 out sold the Wii the same mon th it quoted. The article clearly wants to put the Wii up against the PS3 only to make its point.
I do not see Nintendo winning this war. I see them taking the most amount of non-gamers and turning them into gamers, and obviously gamers who like the new design. But I just can't fanthom Nintendo bringing out tons of games that will make the game mechanics feel new and intersting. Wii sports is currently one of my favorite Wii titles and I don't see any other sports title doing any better. Zelda was very good as well but I wonder if it'll be the same as Dragon Quest. Games they have that will continue drawing gamers are the big names they usually have: Mario, Smash Brothers, Metroid, and Fzero. I see in the long run more games that are similar in style that each and every game will feel the same. But I do see this Nintendo will most likely open up the market but I do not see them being a market leader in the long run it'll be Sony or MS who wins.
MS Has big hitters like Halo 3 that US consumers and EU will be MS money maker. Forza and much more
Sony is still a mixed bag, but if their software title line-up improves it would be a very nice battle. MGS4, GT5, and other titles.
MS Has big hitters like Halo 3 that US consumers and EU will be MS money maker. Forza and much more
Sony is still a mixed bag, but if their software title line-up improves it would be a very nice battle. MGS4, GT5, and other titles.
The Lillster
Banned
I keep hearing this bullshit about the wii only being suitable for multiplayer and non-gamers.
But then theres this game coming out for it called No more Heroes, with plenty of violance and all the stuff you 'True Gamers' like.
But then theres this game coming out for it called No more Heroes, with plenty of violance and all the stuff you 'True Gamers' like.
Wonderdave
Member
Violence has nothing to do with gameplay, it's a side thing. If, in the context of the game, there should be violence then violence is expected. Take Manhunt, the sequal of which is coming out for the wii as well, its' basic gameplay is stealth/survival. the shankings and such are for ambience you could make an entire stealth/survival game without a single act of violence. You need the right context for no violence as much as the context for violence need to be appropiate.The Lillster said:
Eteric Rice
Member
Third parties don't sell on the DS? When?...
I mean, unless you're using something like Brain Age as a guage for "selling."
I mean, unless you're using something like Brain Age as a guage for "selling."
Kobun Heat
Member
When you make games for Nintendo platforms, those games face strong competition from Nintendo's own titles. It's true.LM4sure said:
But if a Nintendo machine is the market leader, then eventually the small piece of the bigger pie becomes larger than the big piece of the smaller pie.
3rd parties did just fine on all the Game Boys too. Nintendo does tend to dominate their platforms, but the same can really be said for any hardware provider with exceptionally strong internal game development. Nintendo platforms aren't any more 1st party dominated than PCE/TG16, MD/Genesis, Saturn, NeoGeo, Wonderswan or Dreamcast were for example.
disappeared
Banned
DarknessTear said:
And that was because they had the lion's share of amazing third-party support.
So then logically third parties should just continue supporting Sony and Microsoft over Nintendo, to make sure they don't have to fight over that small piece of the big pie.Kobun Heat said:
Why would any third party be supportive of a Nintendo market leader, if they have to choose between having that small piece of Nintendo's market leading pie, versus continuing to share the large piece of a Sony or Microsoft market leading pie? With a Nintendo console, regardless of how large their marketshare is, third parties must fight for a minority share. With either a Sony or a Microsoft console, third parties themselves make up the vast majority of the entirety of that pie. Why would a third party want the former over the latter?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Deepblue said:
yeaaah bad example
RubxQub
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎÎ³Î»Î¿Ï Ïον καί ÏÎµÏ Î´Î¿Î»Ïγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Andy787 said:
Because of what he said: "Eventually, the smaller part of Nintendo's pie may end up being bigger then bigger part of the others' pie"
I don't know how you could have missed it... you quoted it.
Andy787 said:
I never thought the 'oh you have to compete with Nintendo' fear held any more water than any third party competing with any major game from any major publisher. If that were the case, then third parties shouldn't have bothered putting their games on the PS2 since they would have had to compete with the likes of Rockstar, Squeenix and EA. And they shouldn't have bothered putting their games on Xbox since they'd have to compete with MS, and Halo.
As jarrod pointed out, it's pretty common for many systems to be first party dominated. Unless your expecting every third party game to sell like NSMB or Nintendogs, then there wouldn't be a problem for viable third party games on Nintendo systems.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
jarrod said:
The Genesis wasn't a failure but the others you named never really took off in NA or won overall, that is for sure.
One thing i noticed was that if your a third party, you tend to want to port your games and since the PS3 and 360 are so close in performance and become the 2 consoles that can represent a developers vision the best, provided the developer wants to use the power now available to next gen consoles, it seems to me that the Wii can not just beat the PS3 and win 3rd party support. It can't just beat the the 360 and win 3rd party support. It has to beat both of them combined to win third party support.
Which even in the most optimistic projections is not possible. Why would developers choose the Wii when they can choose the PS3 and 360. And i just don't see the Wii winning without the lion's share of 3rd party support.
Which even in the most optimistic projections is not possible. Why would developers choose the Wii when they can choose the PS3 and 360. And i just don't see the Wii winning without the lion's share of 3rd party support.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Obviously other people already pointed out the flaw with your "logically," but it was really unnecessary since Chris' explanation was clear as day. When you post 20 times in a thread in which you supposedly have no interest, acting cool as shit, you gotta be careful not to slip up.Andy787 said:
Oh, man. Don't go arguing someone with a defense that is just as illogical.Oblivion said:
The fear absolutely holds water. This picture is not to scale or anything, and the number of slices don't represent the number of games or the number of third parties, but the point is there.
Battersea Power Station said:Oh, man. Don't go arguing someone with a defense that is just as illogical.
The fear absolutely holds water. This picture is not to scale or anything, and the number of slices don't represent the number of games or the number of third parties, but the point is there.
My point was assuming Nintendo was the market leader. In which case, I think my post would be accurate.
Er... using that sort of logic, PS360 would still need to beat PS2, PSP and Wii combined to win out.Any1 said:
Saturn and PC Engine each cut out a solid dedicated market in Japan though... and they were both easily more 1st party dominated than Famicom or Super Famicom, during a period where Japan overwhelmingly led console game development.Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
Wonderdave
Member
Third party support on on any console depends on not only how large the userbase is but what sells depends on the composition of the userbase as well. With the Wii that will tend toward children ( which Nintendo is always strong with ), nintendo faithful, and so called non gamers.
Why haven't I included casuals? Well, casuals are too spead out in terms of tastes so everyone will get a peice of the casual pie. As an example, among casuals many will buy madden every year. The thing is sports titles are heavliy dependent upon replicating the professional experience thus are simulationist in nature. The ability to run 22 seperate AIs to ape the tendencies of of pro ball players is the most important aspect of the game. Every player should act and react as if they were their real life counterpart. That takes computational power, so pretending to actually throw the ball may not rank very high among hardcore sports fans/casual gamers when compared to a more accurate portrayal of player behavior.
Different is good but it needs to be a difference that conveys some desired benefit to the end user.
Why haven't I included casuals? Well, casuals are too spead out in terms of tastes so everyone will get a peice of the casual pie. As an example, among casuals many will buy madden every year. The thing is sports titles are heavliy dependent upon replicating the professional experience thus are simulationist in nature. The ability to run 22 seperate AIs to ape the tendencies of of pro ball players is the most important aspect of the game. Every player should act and react as if they were their real life counterpart. That takes computational power, so pretending to actually throw the ball may not rank very high among hardcore sports fans/casual gamers when compared to a more accurate portrayal of player behavior.
Different is good but it needs to be a difference that conveys some desired benefit to the end user.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
jarrod said:
So? We are talking about winning a gen here. Not to be rude, but one territory consoles are usually like that.
I didn't miss it. My whole ****ing point revolves around the fallacy of that argument, which you seem to have missed in my post... which you quoted lolol. His point contends that if Nintendo were to become such a dominating leader of the market, that the small portion of their third party userbase would be greater than the large portion of the third party userbase on the other systems. Which is entirely true. But my argument is that, that being the case: why the **** would a third party want the Nintendo pie? All things being equal, if Nintendo has a 100M userbase, the third party slice for that is going to be significantly smaller than the that of a 100M PlayStation userbase or a 100M Xbox userbase.RubxQub said:
Again, yes, Kohler is correct in saying that if Nintendo's marketshare were much larger than Sony or Microsoft's, that the smaller portion of Nintendo's userbase may be a more viable source of revenue. But I'm not arguing that. I am pointing out how stupid an argument that is for a third party to support Nintendo. The logical conclusion to that argument, would be for third parties not to support Nintendo.
Pud said:
The difference is that those third parties that you mention, who are such major players on the PS2; Rockstar; Square-Enix; EA... are ****ing third parties. You've just proven my point. lol.Oblivion said:
ForzaItalia
Banned
I guess these recycled topics get so big because of meaningless posts like mine....
You forgot the lapsed/nostalgics. Software initiatives like the Virtual Console, Famicom Mini and classic brand revivals (Tetris DS, NSMB, etc) are really driving a larger and larger segment of the market who loved Nintendo in the 1980s to get back into games.Wonderdave said:
Wii's also well positioned (thanks in part to it's lower spec) to eat up the hardcore 2D/arcade Japanese market, and it's already starting to get leading support from firms like SNK Playmore, Milestone and Arc System Works. In a broader sense, Wii leading Japan will ultimately make it the de-facto choice for any dedicated or casual fan of Japanese software.... it's really just a matter of time at this point, given PlayStation's epic collapse in the region.
There was no flaw with my "logically." And I don't have an interest in the article of the original post, outside of the initial posts' amusement, nor am I trying to act "cool as shit," but thanks for noticing. And if I slip up on something, feel free to point it out. We're on the ****ing Internets. It's all about serious business on these things.Battersea Power Station said:
Andy787 said:
Sorry if I don't follow, but um, why exactly would the third party slice be smaller if Nintendo has the same userbase as the PS2/xbox?
Huh? Yes, they're third parties, but my point is, they're also superpowers. What's the difference to a third party when between Nintendo selling 10+ million copies of a Mario game, and Rockstar selling 10+ million copies of GTA?
We were talking about 1st party domination... the reasoning was just to point out that Nintendo's hardly a unique case in that regard. And if you want to get into market leading platforms, then the Famicoms and Game Boys of the world have always had a healthy 3rd party spread anyway really.Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
Besides, Genesis/MegaDrive was proportionately just as 1st party dominated as any Nintendo platform has ever been, and it was a solid "2 territory" machine.
Eteric Rice
Member
Andy787 said:I didn't miss it. My whole ****ing point revolves around the fallacy of that argument, which you seem to have missed in my post... which you quoted lolol. His point contends that if Nintendo were to become such a dominating leader of the market, that the small portion of their third party userbase would be greater than the large portion of the third party userbase on the other systems. Which is entirely true. But my argument is that, that being the case: why the **** would a third party want the Nintendo slice? All things being equal, if Nintendo has a 100M userbase, the third party slice for that is going to be significantly smaller than the that of a 100M PlayStation userbase or a 100M Xbox userbase.
Again, yes, Kohler is correct in saying that if Nintendo's marketshare were much larger than Sony or Microsoft's, that the smaller portion of Nintendo's userbase may be a more viable source of revenue. But I'm not arguing that. I am pointing out how stupid an argument that is for a third party to support Nintendo. The logical conclusion to that argument, would be for third parties not to support Nintendo.
The difference is that those third parties that you mention, who are such major players on the PS2; Rockstar; Square-Enix; EA... are ****ing third parties. You've just proven my point. lol.
Now, someone needs to take a chill pill...
Wow Andy's really upset. I'm not really sure why a third party would want a share of the Nintendo slice except I guess if they want to be profitable? Even in NA, the software picture for the DS has pretty much 3rd parties doing just about as well as they are on the PSP, except Nintendo games do even better, which means the rankings may be off.
And Im sure there will be some third parties who prefer to play big fish in smaller pond, than smaller fish in bigger pond, that's fine. You can't usually get all the superstars in one team either. It's the economics of sports teams at work. Some developers will find their niche being the supplier of games to the loser. Insofar as DS and possibly Wii is concerned, there's lots of money to be made and S-E is making millions and millions right now for betting on the right horse. It's not that difficult to understand. Money is money.
As much as I dont think highly of EA, their size makes them a bellweather of the industry and they are moving towards not away from Nintendo platforms. So your arguments just make little sense to me.
And Im sure there will be some third parties who prefer to play big fish in smaller pond, than smaller fish in bigger pond, that's fine. You can't usually get all the superstars in one team either. It's the economics of sports teams at work. Some developers will find their niche being the supplier of games to the loser. Insofar as DS and possibly Wii is concerned, there's lots of money to be made and S-E is making millions and millions right now for betting on the right horse. It's not that difficult to understand. Money is money.
As much as I dont think highly of EA, their size makes them a bellweather of the industry and they are moving towards not away from Nintendo platforms. So your arguments just make little sense to me.
jarrod said:Er... using that sort of logic, PS360 would still need to beat PS2, PSP and Wii combined to win out.
No, not at all. The PS2 is being fazed out and will eventually be no longer supported in the way that the PS3 will be. But, just whichever gen has the most development platforms available wasn't the point of my logic. It was the # of strongly supported generation of platforms would be the ones that 3rd party's would turn to. If it were just #'s alone then there would never be new consoles.
RubxQub
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎÎ³Î»Î¿Ï Ïον καί ÏÎµÏ Î´Î¿Î»Ïγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
There's no way that Andy just missed the point again...
There just couldn't be a way that he just misinterpreted the same point...again...
This is exactly what we're saying isn't happening in our "pie" simulation.
Please please please think before you type crazy posts and try and sound big by using the word fallacy while trying to demonstrate how big your phallus is by using words of malice. I suggest you go back to gandering at the Aurora Borealis and stop rubbing your callus.
I retreat to my palace...
There just couldn't be a way that he just misinterpreted the same point...again...
andy787 said:
This is exactly what we're saying isn't happening in our "pie" simulation.
Please please please think before you type crazy posts and try and sound big by using the word fallacy while trying to demonstrate how big your phallus is by using words of malice. I suggest you go back to gandering at the Aurora Borealis and stop rubbing your callus.
I retreat to my palace...
Eteric Rice
Member
Andy787 said:
Now, now. It's okay. We'll just have to give you your meds when you get home.
:lol
Lets give Nintendo the worldwide lead in consoles.
Ninty- 70 million
Sony- 50 million
MS- 40 million
From a graphics standpoint devs would have an easier time porting from PS3 to 360 or vice versa. Even giving Nintendo a sizeable lead over a second place Sony would still put them well below the combined userbase of PS3/360. Considering that Ninty consoles have shown lower 3rd party sales in the past compared to the competition I wouldn't say full fledged 3rd party support is in the bag.
Look at the attach rate for 360, it's not like these 3rd parties are going to pledge exclusive support to Nintendo. As long as these 3rd party games are available and noticeably better looking on PS3/360 they will continue to sell better as well. Nintendo games will continue to sell well, but until a game like Manhunt starts pushing decent numbers on the Wii I'm still in the Nintendo fans are buying Wii camp. Runs away before 20 posters chime in :lol
Ninty- 70 million
Sony- 50 million
MS- 40 million
From a graphics standpoint devs would have an easier time porting from PS3 to 360 or vice versa. Even giving Nintendo a sizeable lead over a second place Sony would still put them well below the combined userbase of PS3/360. Considering that Ninty consoles have shown lower 3rd party sales in the past compared to the competition I wouldn't say full fledged 3rd party support is in the bag.
Look at the attach rate for 360, it's not like these 3rd parties are going to pledge exclusive support to Nintendo. As long as these 3rd party games are available and noticeably better looking on PS3/360 they will continue to sell better as well. Nintendo games will continue to sell well, but until a game like Manhunt starts pushing decent numbers on the Wii I'm still in the Nintendo fans are buying Wii camp. Runs away before 20 posters chime in :lol
You know, you can insinuate that I don't understand what you're talking about all that you'd like, but it isn't going to change the fact that I do understand what you're talking about, and am free to present an opposing view about it. I already made clear that I agree with you, if the situation is that are things are not equal, and Nintendo were to hold the far dominant marketshare. Which is why I am pointing out a different side of that argument, pointing out how that would still not be a good thing for third parties, which was the original contention.RubxQub said:
P.S., I can rhyme, too. But I choose not to, for I am obviously far too furious for such fanciful discourse.
a lot of pople seem to have forgotten that this gen probably more than ever is being led by artistic discretion - devs will find a console which best suits their ambitions. Sometimes its profit, other times its a vision.
I know that Capcom for example pursue the 360 market because of their drive to make more westernised games. People like Kojima like being on the bleeding edge of powerful technology so he's PS3 for now while others are intrigued by the wiimote and wiiconnect24.
even if the ps3 is losing and costs a lot to develop for, devs will still flock to it just to see what they can do with the technology.
p.s. that article was balls. its not like nintendo repackaged games or reinvented consoles. he avoided the more important issues in what is a very well planned and intriguing marketing battle. shame.
I know that Capcom for example pursue the 360 market because of their drive to make more westernised games. People like Kojima like being on the bleeding edge of powerful technology so he's PS3 for now while others are intrigued by the wiimote and wiiconnect24.
even if the ps3 is losing and costs a lot to develop for, devs will still flock to it just to see what they can do with the technology.
p.s. that article was balls. its not like nintendo repackaged games or reinvented consoles. he avoided the more important issues in what is a very well planned and intriguing marketing battle. shame.
Gee... that worked out great for N64.kaizoku said:
There *is* a trend for western devs liking to tackle the most difficult hardware... but come on. By 2008+ (ie: the magic "comeback" years the Sonycorps keep harping about) tech minded western devs will see PS3 sitting between a much better established Xbox 360 and a higher end PC platform. And eastern devs will be in the throse of scribbling and waggling. PS3's between a rock and hard place for the foreseeable future imo...
Wonderdave
Member
Actually their included with the casuals in the second paragraph, the one you didn't quote. But is you want them individualy addressed...jarrod said:
The Nostalgia factor. No one forced anybody to throw out their old consoles. People willingly tossed them and moved on to newer gaming experiences. No one stopped anybody from buying an older gen console and some carts on Ebay or at a flea market. Many classic games can be had 10 on a disc for the PS2 for under 20$ brand new, less if you buy used. MAny Nintendo classics can also be had for the DS iirc. So far as I can tell this "market" is well catered to already with no reason to buy a Wii.
Lasped gamers. Gamers quit all the time and come back all the time as well especially at the beginning of console cycles. There is no special benefit to nintendo in this as a lapsed gamers may buy a Wii but wether or not they'll stay or move on to the X360/PS3 is open to question at this time. I've said it before but it bears repeating, Historicaly Nintendo tolerates the hardcore gamer but doesn't welcome them. This will have to change for the Nintendomination scenerio to have a chance and their corporate culture makes this change look unlikely.
Epic collapse, huh. I'll reserve some crow for you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll