Support NeoGAF

[thetrin]

Doubt it. While they're espousing the same ideas, that's because they're both approaching things from the same perspective. Malstrom's articles read absolutely nothing like any of Lapsed's posts. The writing style is totally different. However, the fact that Lapsed was so on the money means that as more people figure out what's going on and the reasons behind it they'll be using many of the same arguments he did.

So? None of my articles read like my posts. Doesn't mean I don't write my articles. Writers have multiple voices.

 

[FightyF]

You're suggesting that a person who didn't previously play games, or only played those casual mobile experiences, up until the point they purchased a Wii, should then go out and purchase a PS3 or 360, rather than purchasing an upmarket game for a console they already have.

That's right. I argue this mainly due to the controllers offered on various platforms. I would argue as well, that if someone was a serious FPS player, get a PC. If someone was a serious RTS player, get a PC. If someone was a serious fighting game fan, don't get a PC for that.

More importantly, the word "better" is complicated to define, as it is completely subjective. A person who is used to the Wiimote and Nunchuk and how they work, is never going to consider a PS360 game better if they can't control it with the same accuracy and simplicity that the Wiimote offers. It may have prettier graphics, more complex physics or more intelligent AI, but if it's unplayable by the target consumer, that consumer isn't going to accept that it's better.

The Wiimote lacks the accuracy and precision in controls required for hardcore titles. Which is why the 360 and PS3 are more suited for them.

Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros, Metroid Prime

It's hard to argue that great sales of these games, would indicate to Ubisoft to port over Rainbow 6. Fact is, R6 was dumbed down to consoles, from PC.

C&C3, released on the 360, seems dumbed down from previous RTS games. The reason for this is because of the method of control, you went from KB&M to controller.

Back to your question, you should ask yourself, why hasn't Nintendo themselves released a game like Rainbow 6 for their console? We saw 1st parties like SEGA with a successful variety of games. They not only published games like Sonic Adventure, Jet Set Radio and Crazy Taxi, but also Headhunter, Shen Mue, and Rez.

Why doesn't Nintendo themselves make an FPS, that isn't based on an existing IP? Nintendo, back in the days of the N64, would have games like Goldeneye, to demonstrate to 3rd parties that it wasn't the typical Mario title that was selling well. Why doesn't Nintendo make a fighting game akin to Tekken or Virtua Fighter? Why aren't seeing lightgun games from Nintendo, akin to Virtua Cop or House of the Dead? It's not like Nintendo is a small company, or a poor company.

They aren't afraid of taking risks either. Look at Wii Fit.

All of this tells 3rd parties something...that Nintendo is playing it safe with their typical games, releasing mostly stuff related to their big IPs (Zelda, Mario, Metroid), and are taking risks and seeking large payoffs with their CASUAL games.

alternately: Singstar, Buzz!

And we see peripheral based casual games starting to come out in the form of Rockband and Guitar Hero. But neither game indicates to me that I should start selling BABIEZ or LEARN ENGLISHEZ on either the PS3 or 360. Or how about Bloom Blox? Would that sell on the 360/PS3 at full retail prices? Or would it have to be at a discount price on XBLA? At this very moment EA is looking into that.

They can't just port it over and think everything will be alright. Without the motion controls it can lose a lot of its appeal.

And this goes back to my point as to why Malstrom totally missed the point of the Wii and Wii Sports. "Non-gamers" love it because the controls are intuitive and easy to remember. Everybody loves games. Different people like sports, others like card games, others like board games and some like videogames. The barriers to each are the methods in which people engage in them. Nintendo introduced a new method of playing videogames that is very accessible to everyone. Some people simply don't like playing games on a computer because of the keyboard, yet they like controllers. Some don't like controllers, but like a real world object they can related to like a Guitar. In the same way, Nintendo made a device that everyone can try out.

On top of that, they made a game that is very social. To many, playing videogames is like playing Solitaire, as you would just be by yourself. Other people love games like Poker because it's social, and Nintendo saw this long ago as they introduced 4 controller ports into the N64.

Wii Sports did set a precedent, but to think that 3rd parties cannot reach that sort of precedent is incorrect. We're seeing games like Bloom Blox getting a lot of positive attention and hopefully a good amount of sales.

Any hardcore game ported to the Wii has to be drastically changed to be made more accessible, more appealing to those who want a social experience, and made with the consumer's unique taste in mind. People didn't buy the Wii for hardcore games, you simply cannot make the mistake in thinking they want them.

 

[Linkup]

He's a fanatical Nintendo zealot.

Just like anyone else who is right these days. Guess that doesn't include most of gaf though.

 

[Vic]

Simply put, all he seems to be writing about is Nintendo's BET for this generation which payed off as he wrote months ago.

 

[justchris]

That's right. I argue this mainly due to the controllers offered on various platforms. I would argue as well, that if someone was a serious FPS player, get a PC. If someone was a serious RTS player, get a PC. If someone was a serious fighting game fan, don't get a PC for that.

Okay, your point is at least somewhat valid, but entirely ignores the differences in playstyles and accessability different people have. You might expect, when upgrading from a Wii for next generation that a person might go for a PS4 instead of a Wii 2, but to expect them to shift to a different system in the same generation ignores a lot of the foundations of social economics. You're making a logical argument and assuming it applies, when logic and reason need bear no relation to each other.

The Wiimote lacks the accuracy and precision in controls required for hardcore titles. Which is why the 360 and PS3 are more suited for them.

You severely underestimate what the Wiimote is capable of. The majority of the information provided by the Wiimote goes unused because it isn't particularly useful in the way the games are being designed. This is a design issue, not a hardware issue, and it's still to early in the game to say that it cannot be overcome.

Back to your question, you should ask yourself, why hasn't Nintendo themselves released a game like Rainbow 6 for their console? We saw 1st parties like SEGA with a successful variety of games. They not only published games like Sonic Adventure, Jet Set Radio and Crazy Taxi, but also Headhunter, Shen Mue, and Rez.

Why doesn't Nintendo themselves make an FPS, that isn't based on an existing IP? Nintendo, back in the days of the N64, would have games like Goldeneye, to demonstrate to 3rd parties that it wasn't the typical Mario title that was selling well. Why doesn't Nintendo make a fighting game akin to Tekken or Virtua Fighter? Why aren't seeing lightgun games from Nintendo, akin to Virtua Cop or House of the Dead? It's not like Nintendo is a small company, or a poor company.

Goldeneye was/is an existing IP.

And there's always the simple explanation that they just haven't gotten to that point in their plan yet. They are still very much in the "attract" phase of the Wii's lifespan, moving into the "bridge" phase. Where they will ultimately end up is debatable, but you could possibly look at the DS as a potential example, where their casual releases have mostly dried up, and they're releasing primarily core fare. That's not to say that is their goal with the Wii, but it seems likely.

All of this tells 3rd parties something...that Nintendo is playing it safe with their typical games, releasing mostly stuff related to their big IPs (Zelda, Mario, Metroid), and are taking risks and seeking large payoffs with their CASUAL games.

Zelda was a GC port, we don't know what type of risks they'll take with their next Zelda game. Two of the first games they showed were Project HAMMER & Disaster. One was cancelled, another should be out by Fall. They've burned through their core ips faster this gen than they did last gen, which gives them room to introduce more new ips over time.

But really, a lot of the problem is that Nintendo's core competencies are not directed in the games you've listed. I mean, other than Smash Bros, what fighting games has Nintendo made? All their FPS games were made by Rare, who's owned by MS now. They made Link's Crossbow Training, and what followed that were a series of very successful 3rd party Lightgun games. Maybe Retro's working on something, but it could turn out to be an existing IP, or a remake, or a casual product, no way to know until it appears, but a lot of the genre's you listed just are not something Nintendo puts out, even for their previous systems. It doesn't really prove anything.

And we see peripheral based casual games starting to come out in the form of Rockband and Guitar Hero. But neither game indicates to me that I should start selling BABIEZ or LEARN ENGLISHEZ on either the PS3 or 360. Or how about Bloom Blox? Would that sell on the 360/PS3 at full retail prices? Or would it have to be at a discount price on XBLA? At this very moment EA is looking into that.

They can't just port it over and think everything will be alright. Without the motion controls it can lose a lot of its appeal.

Why not, they sold on PS2...to an extent. In fact, according to Ubisoft, those types of games are selling worse on the Wii than they were on the PS2. So no, if they won't sell on the Wii, I can't see them being very good sellers on the PS360 either.

You're right about Boom Blox losing a lot of it's appeal on the PS360 though. But that doesn't mean that casual games made from the ground up for those consoles wouldn't sell. By the same token, more hardcore games made from the ground up for the Wii would sell also.

And this goes back to my point as to why Malstrom totally missed the point of the Wii and Wii Sports. "Non-gamers" love it because the controls are intuitive and easy to remember. Everybody loves games. Different people like sports, others like card games, others like board games and some like videogames. The barriers to each are the methods in which people engage in them. Nintendo introduced a new method of playing videogames that is very accessible to everyone. Some people simply don't like playing games on a computer because of the keyboard, yet they like controllers. Some don't like controllers, but like a real world object they can related to like a Guitar. In the same way, Nintendo made a device that everyone can try out.

Actually, not everybody believes they like games. The genius of the Wii & Wii Sports was that it convinced people who thought games (not just videogames, but all games) were silly wastes of time, that they actually like games, they just had never been presented with the right ones before. The same was true of Brain Training.

But you're right, different people like different types of games. A system with a wider variety of games will therefore appeal to a larger number of people. A larger number of people liking the games you offer means more people buying your system. More people buying your system means a larger pool of people to sell games to. If you and I can follow this idea to it's logical conclusion, why do you feel Nintendo won't?

Wii Sports did set a precedent, but to think that 3rd parties cannot reach that sort of precedent is incorrect. We're seeing games like Bloom Blox getting a lot of positive attention and hopefully a good amount of sales.

I agree with this. I think the point of Malstrom's article was not that Nintendo's success could not be emulated and repeated, but that the people trying to emulate it were doing it wrong. You don't just copy something verbatim and expect it to have the same effect, you have to understand why it has that effect, and copy the principle behind it in your own way.

The principles that make Wii Sports popular are not restricted to casual games. Core games following the same design principles should do (and in fact have done) just as well.

Any hardcore game ported to the Wii has to be drastically changed to be made more accessible, more appealing to those who want a social experience, and made with the consumer's unique taste in mind. People didn't buy the Wii for hardcore games, you simply cannot make the mistake in thinking they want them.

No, no it doesn't. For one, that implies that only casual gamers own a Wii, which is clearly no the case as a significant portion of this very board can attest to. For two, it implies that any game on the Wii must match every single selling point of the Wii's best selling game to sell well, which is clearly not true. For three, we don't know if a game that is essentially the same as one on the PS360 would sell decently on the Wii, becasue no one has tried yet (and we clearly can't expect Nintendo to try). Well, except Guitar Hero 3 I guess, but that hardly counts, since it has it's own unique control setup.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I think his point is that if you start downstream you can move your customer base upstream, converting non gamers to gamers. His argument seems to hinge on the fact that NSMB and MK DS did and are still doing crazy numbers, which is interesting since NSMB seems to have outsold everything bar Nintendogs and Pokemon. Maybe, just maybe, it's a good game.

The most important piece of writing an insightful argument is causality, which his article does not attempt to establish. If some other explanation is possible, then there must be some reason given as to why it is not true. For instance, the DS and the Wii are or will be Nintendo's two highest selling systems outside of the Gameboy line, and it may yet eclipse that. The DS itself is not the Gameboy, as it has established itself as the dominant system in Japan, beating out technology that's a decade ahead of it. So we must attempt to examine it in that light.

And I think the numbers bear that out. MK64 is still the best selling game of the series in America by far. Why are its overall sales smaller than MKDS? Because sales of the N64 were never that strong in Europe and Japan, and so that held MK64 back. It says something that MKDS is the best selling game in the franchise despite the fact that it sold millions less than MK64 in America. So is it much more likely to say that MKDS was the right game to come out on the right system at the right time? Or is it really likely to conclude that non gamers who had never cared before to play Mario Kart are making the difference?

Likewise, sales of NSMB are strong, but there are a million nuances to that argument. Overall it's not selling as strongly as past 2D Mario games; in Japan it's one of the most popular Mario games, but in America it can't come close to older Marios, so what does that in itself say? Is there a fracture between 2D Mario and 3D Mario based on their diverging play styles? Is there an effect of Mario on handheld vs. Mario on console? How has interest changed vs. where it was in the past in all three major territories? There are so many things to examine in that argument, and I think it's a real disservice to simply conclude that there is a migration happening without looking too deeply into it (you think he would since the article is so damned long).

 

[Chris FOM]

So? None of my articles read like my posts. Doesn't mean I don't write my articles. Writers have multiple voices.

Although true, I'd be hard-pressed to find an author who's more formal on a forum than with the articles he himself writes. Everyone I've read is much less formal on a forum than when writing articles for somewhere, but Lapsed's forum posts are far more formal than what Malstrom is writing. Plus there are a number of features of Lapsed's posts that are missing from Malstrom's articles. For examples, Lapsed loved using Yellow Tail Wine as an example of a successful Blue Ocean strategy, referencing it in a huge number of his posts. Malstrom has never mentioned it once that I can find.

It's plausible I guess that they're the same, but I would be shocked if they were. Malstrom makes some very good points, but he's not much of a writer and a lot of what he says gets lost in the packaging. His Birdmen article could be half the length and still get every one of his points across. Lapsed didn't respond to others much and merely stated his own thoughts, but he was extremely thorough laid out every step in his logic, and was far more economical in his word usage. I just can't see someone who's as good a writer as Lapsed was putting out Malstrom's articles.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

The most important piece of writing an insightful argument is causality, which his article does not attempt to establish. If some other explanation is possible, then there must be some reason given as to why it is not true. For instance, the DS and the Wii are or will be Nintendo's two highest selling systems outside of the Gameboy line, and it may yet eclipse that. The DS itself is not the Gameboy, as it has established itself as the dominant system in Japan, beating out technology that's a decade ahead of it. So we must attempt to examine it in that light.

And I think the numbers bear that out. MK64 is still the best selling game of the series in America by far. Why are its overall sales smaller than MKDS? Because sales of the N64 were never that strong in Europe and Japan, and so that held MK64 back. It says something that MKDS is the best selling game in the franchise despite the fact that it sold millions less than MK64 in America. So is it much more likely to say that MKDS was the right game to come out on the right system at the right time? Or is it really likely to conclude that non gamers who had never cared before to play Mario Kart are making the difference?

Likewise, sales of NSMB are strong, but there are a million nuances to that argument. Overall it's not selling as strongly as past 2D Mario games; in Japan it's one of the most popular Mario games, but in America it can't come close to older Marios, so what does that in itself say? Is there a fracture between 2D Mario and 3D Mario based on their diverging play styles? Is there an effect of Mario on handheld vs. Mario on console? How has interest changed vs. where it was in the past in all three major territories? There are so many things to examine in that argument, and I think it's a real disservice to simply conclude that there is a migration happening without looking too deeply into it (you think he would since the article is so damned long).

The older 2D Marios were bundled with the console at most points in the NES/SNES's lifetime...

 

[Nightbringer]

I have the four books that he uses as the base for his articles (Innovator´s Dilemma, Innovator´s Solution, Seeing what´s next and Blue Ocean Strategy) and I should say that they are very understandable even if you haven´t any education in the business area.

His view about Nintendo is correct at 100%, in special when he makes comparisons between the NES and the Wii. In the case of the last console of Nintendo its strategy is nothing more than a NES 2 strategy but we need to know if Nintendo will go to the original NES strategy invented by Yamauchi (the one with multimedia capabilities and online gaming. For reference see the chapter Borders of the book titled Game Over and written by David Sheff) or they will go with the SNES stretegy in the future.

The only problem that PS3 and 360 have is that the HD isn´t a massmarket thing yet, the people continues with their SDTV but we know that soon they will forced to change to HDTV, for example my parents have a Sony Wega 32" from 1995 and they believe that their TV will continue living and I know that they will be forced to change the living room TV.

In other words, PS3 and 360 are comparable to the Amiga and the Atari ST, both were great systems but they were less popular than the NES, now I am sure that we will see the PSmote and the Xmote soon but they will bomb but when someone will release an HD console for $200 in the middle of real change to the HD then this company will make a lot of damage to Nintendo because it will make the same effect than MegaDrive.

But I am with you that sometimes he sounds like a Nintendo Zealot.

 

[marc^o^]

But I am with you that sometimes he sounds like a Nintendo Zealot.

The thing is, even if he is, he is only a David against Goliath and it's good to have at least someone analyse what is going on, from this side of the spectrum. Kuddos to you, Malstrom, Lapsed, whoever you are

 

[Mgoblue201]

The older 2D Marios were bundled with the console at most points in the NES/SNES's lifetime...

Of course, but it doesn't necessarily muddle the point. In fact, there is a reason Mario was bundled. The cultural impact was astronomical. It's hard to meet someone who owned an NES but didn't actually play a Mario game. It's hard to find anyone from that era who hasn't played a Mario game in some capacity. In order to make the upstream/downstream argument, there has to be a starting point and then a movement. But Mario's sphere of influence is such that most people have the proclivity to play those games.

I made the argument in the other ill fated thread that most people are stuck in different stratums and are bound by their tastes. Casual fair is something that rings eternal. No matter what medium it is, there will always be those who hang around on the fringe. Nintendo's brilliance was in simply getting those people to realize that they really wanted to play videogames by offering experiences that fit their tastes. Mario isn't some rung on the ladder. Mario is the epitome of a true pick up and play game experience.

 

[FightyF]

Okay, your point is at least somewhat valid, but entirely ignores the differences in playstyles and accessability different people have. You might expect, when upgrading from a Wii for next generation that a person might go for a PS4 instead of a Wii 2, but to expect them to shift to a different system in the same generation ignores a lot of the foundations of social economics. You're making a logical argument and assuming it applies, when logic and reason need bear no relation to each other.

I don't expect people to really shift from one to the other, but rather I'm pointing out that some consoles are more suited for certain games/functions than others. People that bought the Wii are attracted to games like Wii Sports. Not necessarily games like Rainbow 6. If they do like R6, it's likely they already have a PC/360/PS3 or plan to get one too.

You severely underestimate what the Wiimote is capable of. The majority of the information provided by the Wiimote goes unused because it isn't particularly useful in the way the games are being designed. This is a design issue, not a hardware issue, and it's still to early in the game to say that it cannot be overcome.

I'm fairly familiar with its capabilities. The only "hardcore" games I can see it performing well with are PC games that require a mouse where controllers have fallen short. Things like RTS games, Point and Click Adventure games, and the like. But I'll restate that most Wii owners didn't buy the Wii for RTS games, or P&C games...they bought because they had fun with Wii Sports at a friends and wanted their own. I know this is a fairly extreme generalization, but I think we can all agree that it's most likely true in most cases.

Goldeneye was/is an existing IP.

Sorry I should have clarified, I meant Nintendo IP.

And there's always the simple explanation that they just haven't gotten to that point in their plan yet. They are still very much in the "attract" phase of the Wii's lifespan, moving into the "bridge" phase. Where they will ultimately end up is debatable, but you could possibly look at the DS as a potential example, where their casual releases have mostly dried up, and they're releasing primarily core fare. That's not to say that is their goal with the Wii, but it seems likely.

That's possible. I suppose we'll have to wait until E3. What I think we should be seeing from Nintendo is a concentrated effort in getting more games out, all sorts of games, creating new IPs, and if they are serious about proving that hardcore games will work, make their own hardcore games. They should have closer partnerships with Western developers like Retro and new relationships with others.

Despite being in third place, Sony has done the best job in creating new IPs, creating sequels for existing IPs, and venturing into the unknown (games like Echochrome and PAIN are fairly interesting risks on Sony's part).

Zelda was a GC port, we don't know what type of risks they'll take with their next Zelda game. Two of the first games they showed were Project HAMMER & Disaster. One was cancelled, another should be out by Fall. They've burned through their core ips faster this gen than they did last gen, which gives them room to introduce more new ips over time.

But really, a lot of the problem is that Nintendo's core competencies are not directed in the games you've listed. I mean, other than Smash Bros, what fighting games has Nintendo made? All their FPS games were made by Rare, who's owned by MS now. They made Link's Crossbow Training, and what followed that were a series of very successful 3rd party Lightgun games. Maybe Retro's working on something, but it could turn out to be an existing IP, or a remake, or a casual product, no way to know until it appears, but a lot of the genre's you listed just are not something Nintendo puts out, even for their previous systems. It doesn't really prove anything.

I think the fact that it isn't in their current core competencies shouldn't hold them back from creating partnerships with developers where it is. For example, the partnership with Rare resulted in a console FPS game (back in '97, original console FPS games were somewhat rare). Same with Retro for Metroid Prime. Again, Nintendo isn't poor, they can hire excellent talent to make them a great game. These sorts of partnerships is what MS relies on heavily and it has resulted in many great games. Just imagine what we could have seen if Nintendo partnered with Bioshock to make an RPG for the Wii,. That is, if Nintendo is out to prove that these hardcore games will appeal to Wii owners.

The complaint by many, including Malstrom, is that these developers and publishers should go ahead and take these risks. Until Nintendo paves the way, I don't see many of them taking risks.

Why not, they sold on PS2...to an extent. In fact, according to Ubisoft, those types of games are selling worse on the Wii than they were on the PS2. So no, if they won't sell on the Wii, I can't see them being very good sellers on the PS360 either.

PS2 and PS3 are totally different. You're getting a large number of casuals picking the PS2 up for dirt cheap, so those casual games make sense. In the case of the PS3, where until recently it was only the Sony die-hard and HT enthusiasts picking it up, it would not make sense to release them.

You're right about Boom Blox losing a lot of it's appeal on the PS360 though. But that doesn't mean that casual games made from the ground up for those consoles wouldn't sell. By the same token, more hardcore games made from the ground up for the Wii would sell also.

I'd argue that these casual games are NOT selling on the PS3 and 360. There are many available on XBLA, and they are only selling 50K to 100K. Though these are enough to make a decent profit, it still represents a small fraction of the 360 userbase.

Actually, not everybody believes they like games. The genius of the Wii & Wii Sports was that it convinced people who thought games (not just videogames, but all games) were silly wastes of time, that they actually like games, they just had never been presented with the right ones before. The same was true of Brain Training.

I disagree with that, but my evidence is only anecdotal so I suppose we'll have to leave this in disagreement.

But you're right, different people like different types of games. A system with a wider variety of games will therefore appeal to a larger number of people. A larger number of people liking the games you offer means more people buying your system. More people buying your system means a larger pool of people to sell games to. If you and I can follow this idea to it's logical conclusion, why do you feel Nintendo won't?

I think the Wiimote will prove to be a barrier. Nintendo can try to overcome it, as they have in the case of MP3 using the Wiimote. To many, Metroid was a dumbed down FPS, so it would be interesting to see how games like another Medal of Honour could borrow from Corruption and provide an FPS experience akin to other console FPS games.

But again, people didn't buy the console for Medal of Honour. Most FPS fans went to the PS3 or 360.

I agree with this. I think the point of Malstrom's article was not that Nintendo's success could not be emulated and repeated, but that the people trying to emulate it were doing it wrong. You don't just copy something verbatim and expect it to have the same effect, you have to understand why it has that effect, and copy the principle behind it in your own way.

In his first statement he effectively states they will fail in their attempts. He does say they are going about it wrong, but I think his examples are inaccurate. He claims they're trying to dumb the controls down in order to appeal to Wii owners, when in reality they are simply trying to adapt the precise controls of gamepads to the Wiimote, just as a PC developer would have to map the precise controls of a keyboard and mouse to a controller (for an FPS game). The developers aren't treating Wii owners as "retards" as he puts it. They are simply attempting to convert a control system, to another, and that is providing a lot of challenge. What I'm arguing (alongside my main argument that most people aren't interested in the Wii for it's hardcore games) is that if there is a way, Nintendo should lead the way. A game like Excite Truck is the sort of game I'm talking about.

The principles that make Wii Sports popular are not restricted to casual games. Core games following the same design principles should do (and in fact have done) just as well.

That's true, but it doesn't make it a "hardcore" game. If the baseball portion was akin to a "hardcore" baseball game where every aspect of the game was controlled, from your fielders to your runners on base to who's in your bullpen warming up, I'd argue that Wii Sports would be a totally different game in the minds of consumers.

No, no it doesn't. For one, that implies that only casual gamers own a Wii, which is clearly no the case as a significant portion of this very board can attest to.

Not only, but "largely". The forum posters here are a small minority of the market, and many of us own multiple consoles. Games like Mario Galaxy could be considered serious "hardcore" games, but their sales don't tell publishers that they should release their next tactical FPS on the console, or their latest hockey sports title, or their latest cyberpunk RPG.

For two, it implies that any game on the Wii must match every single selling point of the Wii's best selling game to sell well, which is clearly not true.

Is it really that clear? I mean, what sort of game WOULD sell on the Wii?

For three, we don't know if a game that is essentially the same as one on the PS360 would sell decently on the Wii, becasue no one has tried yet (and we clearly can't expect Nintendo to try). Well, except Guitar Hero 3 I guess, but that hardly counts, since it has it's own unique control setup.

How about Medal of Honor? You could claim that we'll never know until someone has tried, and that's true. But it's almost like trying to convince EA that they should start publishing Cricket games Stateside. Despite a simple portjob that doesn't even require a language change, EA is hesitant in doing so. There's a lot of research that needs to be done, and the strongest evidence comes in the form of sales.

Malstrom likes to throw around words like "retard", "dumb down", etc. when not really considering that "hardcore" games can't simply be ported over without any changes. If Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport were ported to the Wii, it could not use the Wiimote system and expect people to enjoy the game in that manner. Far more suitable titles are titles like Excite Truck (without which we would not have known that racers of any form were possible on the Wii) and Speed Racer (which focuses on combat, and other elements to add depth to the racing).

I totally disagree with his analysis of 3rd parties. Sure, some of them follow in Nintendo's footsteps, but the reason for their failure is that they are simply not executed well. They aren't failing because they are me-too games...but rather poor games. If there was a "me-too" Wii Sports rip off that played just as good as Wii Sports, and was just as fun, it would sell. If someone made a Mario Galaxy ripoff that was just as fun as MG, it would sell as well.

 

[Vinci]

About the difference between sales of 2d Mario games and 3d ones:

I think the difference is due more to NSMB being similar to something everyone played when they were younger, thus taking advantage of the DS's talent for bringing in lapsed gamers. Why does it not sell as well as some of the previous 2d entries? Because the number of people playing video games back then was higher, and the DS (and Wii) have yet to completely bring them back into the fold for a variety of possible reasons. Those that were brought back in with things like Nintendogs, Brain Age, what have you, could very well have moved onto NSMB. It's hard to know exactly where all the sales came from to be honest, but I can see some reasoning into that.

The argument is that, by the advent of 3d gaming, the complicated controllers had scared off a great deal of people who would routinely play games -- thus leaving behind a smaller, more dedicated fraction of the total game-playing populace. The 'contracting' of the market that Nintendo has mentioned over the years. So 3d might still be too high a barrier for some of these people coming back into it, whereas NSMB isn't as intimidating.

Overall, I see a lot of sense to the 'Disruption Theory.' Malstrom's choice as to how he displays his arguments are a bit eccentric, I'll give people that, but he comments on that at length in other places as the site. Stating that analysts don't need to always talk so formally; that there can be a little fun, a little sarcasm and drama to what and how they communicate their information. If it's not for you, so be it. I find it entertaining. Even the originator of the 'Disruption Theory' is taking a keen interest in Nintendo at this point, so I think that (combined with their own statements) make it clear that it's the strategy they're using and that it exists completely outside the logic or rationale ordinarily used to analyze and determine the future of this particular industry.

 

[Haunted]

Simply put, all he seems to be writing about is Nintendo's BET for this generation which payed off as he wrote months ago.

Yeah, he's basically following the ideal outcome of their strategy (as detailed in the two books he's constantly referring to).


Thing is, that's exactly the way this gen has played out so far. Perfect execution by Nintendo up until now.

 

[Vinci]

I totally disagree with his analysis of 3rd parties. Sure, some of them follow in Nintendo's footsteps, but the reason for their failure is that they are simply not executed well. They aren't failing because they are me-too games...but rather poor games.

That's sort of his point. Why are they poor games? Because Ubisoft looks at Wii Sports and sees shit, a casual game, something that has no complexity or sophistication to it whatsoever. So they stick their D teams on the system and have them produce shit, expecting some sort of instant gratification because they don't understand why Wii Sports is as popular as it is. [This also relates to the concept of a 'genre king,' which he doesn't use as a term specifically but is something that has been studied elsewhere and feeds into his GTA arguments.]

The reason Wii Sports is popular is because Nintendo put some of their best developers on it. They didn't give it to a shit team and half-ass it. It was designed to fit within the company's strategy - one that, it seems, every single person at Nintendo is on-board with and understands. They made a good, competent game because they knew they weren't marketing Wii Sports (and the Wii, by extension) to morons. Ubisoft makes shit because they clearly are. That's their intent. That somehow people are going to look at Wii Sports, look over at the absolute garbage that is Dogz and Babiez, and not be able to tell who gave a damn and who didn't. Which isn't happening. People can tell. Even if other 3rd parties may not consider 'casual gamers' as retards, I don't doubt for a second that Ubisoft does.

If there was a "me-too" Wii Sports rip off that played just as good as Wii Sports, and was just as fun, it would sell. If someone made a Mario Galaxy ripoff that was just as fun as MG, it would sell as well.

So why haven't they made one? If it were that easy, why haven't they? Even Deca Sports, a pretty noticeable Wii Sports knock-off, doesn't perform anywhere near what Wii Sports did. It sold all right, it made the company plenty of money, but it's not even in the same league.

And people stating that GTA clones are doing well, please provide me some evidence of this. None of them come even close to the level GTA achieved. No other game has a $100 million budget and can actually expect to make that back. If they could simply run in GTA's wake, there wouldn't be such a difference in sales, exposure, and budgets. Given that there are games that play similarly to GTA, and oftentimes better (see Crackdown), why haven't they been able to reach a comparable audience?

 

[Deku]

The attacks have gotten pretty presonal. I see no substantive replies from his detractors rather than re-iterating the same tired and self constructed schisms on hardcore v casual.

Seans point this is pretty accurate, even if you do not agree with his tone or writing style. The hardcore as defined as GAF misappropriates the term 'hardcore' coined a few years ago to define 'male orientied violent fare' that dominated gaming, as opposed to the 'training' games which was first released on the DS at the time.

The term has since then been misusedto seperate classes of gamers based on console/manufacturer bias, not on the kind of games we play. That's the implicit meaning and it is why the hardcore v casual argument repeated ad nauseum is both disingenous and toxic. Stop using it, it's meaningless and is now a loaded argument.

I don't expect people to really shift from one to the other, but rather I'm pointing out that some consoles are more suited for certain games/functions than others. People that bought the Wii are attracted to games like Wii Sports. Not necessarily games like Rainbow 6. If they do like R6, it's likely they already have a PC/360/PS3 or plan to get one too.

That's a fair point and I totally agree. but don't you think bundling the PC/360/PS3 together as a bit of a moment of lowered expectations? PS2 was never considered to be part of the PC's extended platform. It stood on its own with its own library.

I am sure I will be slammed for this, but the fact that so many people want to construct this imaginary alliance of PC/360/PS3 tells me they are arguing from a position of relative weakness. This is especially true for the Sony fans who had every game handed to them last gen and is now having to settle for ports and fighting for scraps of the samey FPS and sandbox games. There isn't even the variety there anymore. How can this be hardcore.

A lot of gamers have been left out.

 

[pivot]

This entire thread is highly awesome, in terms of information and intellect.

My two cents: based on what I read (edit: and I didn't read everything he wrote), the guy is a frontrunner. I don't feel that this "analyst" (someone called him earlier) can be true if he retains a bias.

I put him in the same group as Tucker Max: highly entertaining but artificially over the top.

 

[Vinci]

I am sure I will be slammed for this, but the fact that so many people want to construct this imaginary alliance of PC/360/PS3 tells me they are arguing from a position of relative weakness.

Like watching people huddle together for warmth and safety.

Yes, I just pulled a Malstrom and dramatized it, but is something similar to the behavior. People always use the combined PS360PC super-structure to state why the Wii will never completely take over, and I find that actually quite entertaining. Who knew it took three platforms to compete with one?

 

[GitarooMan]

Not surprising that this guy might be Lapsed, same condescening yet obvious as hell "analysis", which is usually so incredibly bloated his obvious points get lost in a sea of meandering bullshit.

 

[Mgoblue201]

About the difference between sales of 2d Mario games and 3d ones:

I think the difference is due more to NSMB being similar to something everyone played when they were younger, thus taking advantage of the DS's talent for bringing in lapsed gamers. Why does it not sell as well as some of the previous 2d entries? Because the number of people playing video games back then was higher, and the DS (and Wii) have yet to completely bring them back into the fold for a variety of possible reasons. Those that were brought back in with things like Nintendogs, Brain Age, what have you, could very well have moved onto NSMB. It's hard to know exactly where all the sales came from to be honest, but I can see some reasoning into that.

The argument is that, by the advent of 3d gaming, the complicated controllers had scared off a great deal of people who would routinely play games -- thus leaving behind a smaller, more dedicated fraction of the total game-playing populace. The 'contracting' of the market that Nintendo has mentioned over the years. So 3d might still be too high a barrier for some of these people coming back into it, whereas NSMB isn't as intimidating.

Overall, I see a lot of sense to the 'Disruption Theory.' Malstrom's choice as to how he displays his arguments are a bit eccentric, I'll give people that, but he comments on that at length in other places as the site. Stating that analysts don't need to always talk so formally; that there can be a little fun, a little sarcasm and drama to what and how they communicate their information. If it's not for you, so be it. I find it entertaining. Even the originator of the 'Disruption Theory' is taking a keen interest in Nintendo at this point, so I think that (combined with their own statements) make it clear that it's the strategy they're using and that it exists completely outside the logic or rationale ordinarily used to analyze and determine the future of this particular industry.

Judging by sales figures I find it unlikely that more people used to play videogames. At least fewer systems were sold at that time. Each successive generation has brought more and more people into the fold, and it has also reflected in the amount of games that people have bought, as software sales are more robust than ever. Some people have been squeezed out, but Nintendo has basically gone for a clean sweep of non gamers, former gamers, casual gamers, and hardcore gamers, doing at least decently in all demographics.

The point is, as I have made it, and I don't believe he addresses this in that article, if any of his articles, that these people exist for a reason. A non gamer is a non gamer because games as they were never interested him. A lapsed gamer is such that gaming has passed him by. A casual gamer is a casual because he never had the mentality of a hardcore player. Entertainment involves a lot of time and money, and people enjoy things based on taste, so most people don't have a proclivity for serious gaming.

Everybody is familiar with the old Mario games. They were some of the few NES games that really reached beyond videogames. It is obvious by now that there is a real simplicity and purity to them that not even the 3D Marios quite have. And so I think it's quite a bit of a stretch to use NSMB on some theoretical ladder. I think that a game like Nintendogs is a trojan horse at best so that they're one step closer to purchasing other games. And certainly an upstream/downstream argument can be used on a case by case basis, as it does exist (and I have seen it myself).

But Phantom Hourglass was supposed to be this great entry level Zelda, and yet it couldn't come close to what OOT did in Japan despite the expanded user base of the DS compared to the N64, and while a couple hundred thousand Japanese seem to prefer it to the bloated, for lack of a better word, TP, outside of Japan gamers have massively preferred TP. What is the point of gaining some fans if you're going to lose so many more? Of course there are obvious reasons why this is so, but it just proves that there are so many more factors involved here, almost rendering a huge basis for his article inert. There are demographics at play, especially given the hugely obvious disparities in cultures.

 

[border]

His points are long-winded and often go nowhere. His supporting evidence is rarely actual data. More often his evidence is either a quote from a Nintendo executive or just some additional assertion out of nowhere. He's also something of an admitted troll:

Now you know why I always write how hardcore 'foam at the mouth', 'scream and pout', and why I keep putting it in their face that their 'hardcore world' will collapse.

Someone that revels so much in their own ideas and the reactions to them has lost any sense objectivity (as if the "Four Horsemen" article didn't already tell you that).

I can understand why he's bolstered so much support around here lately -- fanboys love to see their cause given a sophisticated, intellectual feel. But if you peer underneath the surface rather than just take his broad assertions at face value -- everything's a bit hollow.

 

[Vinci]

Judging by sales figures I find it unlikely that more people used to play videogames.

I was talking about more demographics, though I failed to mention that so I can see that I wasn't very clear on that point. Over time, video games have been almost entirely directed towards very narrow demographics compared to the markets that used to exist on the NES (specifically). The NES had plenty of games that would be considered questionable by the hardly-core today, but nobody really thought about it back then - it was simply targeting more demographics. Over time, those narrowed into what we're seeing today - a very homogenized market centered around particular genres. Family gaming, which I remember doing plenty of as a kid, was next to extinct before the Wii hit.

Each successive generation has brought more and more people into the fold, and it has also reflected in the amount of games that people have bought, as software sales are more robust than ever.

People growing up, having access to their own cash. There are lots of factors that go into this, but how much has the population risen in the last twenty years? To say that something is selling more now than previous things in the past doesn't mean that it's hitting the same level of cultural impact or managing the demographics to the same degree.

Also, looking at this generation, it's debatable how well the hardware is doing with the Wii out of the picture.

Some people have been squeezed out, but Nintendo has basically gone for a clean sweep of non gamers, former gamers, casual gamers, and hardcore gamers, doing at least decently in all demographics.

Agreed. Which is intelligent and sound business. And anyone thinking Nintendo is going to avoid targeting the part of the market that buys games like madmen is kidding themselves. They are going to travel upmarket. Continuing to target the downmarket doesn't make a lick of sense as they're facing no competition on that level.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

I don't see what's so controversial about his writing style. Conversing with an imaginary audience is a device which ancient authors (like Plato) used.

 

[No6]

I don't see what's so controversial about his writing style. Conversing with an imaginary audience is a device which ancient authors (like Plato) used.

It's the kind of style decision that's expected out of a college sophomore. Not surprisingly the actual content is also about what I'd expect from a college sophomore.

 

[border]

I was talking about more demographics, though I failed to mention that so I can see that I wasn't very clear on that point. Over time, video games have been almost entirely directed towards very narrow demographics compared to the markets that used to exist on the NES (specifically). The NES had plenty of games that would be considered questionable by the hardly-core today, but nobody really thought about it back then - it was simply targeting more demographics. Over time, those narrowed into what we're seeing today - a very homogenized market centered around particular genres. Family gaming, which I remember doing plenty of as a kid, was next to extinct before the Wii hit.

Outside of a few weird titles, I don't recall the NES having this broad, family-oriented library. And you're wearing nostalgia goggles if you think that era wasn't equally as focused "around particular genres".

I don't see what's so controversial about his writing style. Conversing with an imaginary audience is a device which ancient authors (like Plato) used.

The imaginary dialogue, like any other device, can be used well or it can be used poorly. It's one of those things that is pretty difficult to use well, though. In this case I think it adds little more than tedium, and is on occasion just used to distort any opposing viewpoints.

 

[Dragon]

Just like anyone else who is right these days. Guess that doesn't include most of gaf though.

Actually I believe there are more fans of Nintendo on here than the other two consoles.

 

[Deku]

Not surprising that this guy might be Lapsed, same condescening yet obvious as hell "analysis", which is usually so incredibly bloated his obvious points get lost in a sea of meandering bullshit.

His writing style needs no defending. But I don't see how his analysis is so obvious judging from the responses.

People obviously disagree with him on a base level, but having no real ideas and counterarguments to rebutt the points, we've been talking about the quality of his writing is sophmorish or not.

Which admittedly is still better than half of the GAF posts.

 

[Neo C.]

[...]
Which admittedly is still better than half of the GAF posts.

Not talking about style, but content wise most of his points have been mentioned by several users for years. While I agree that he put the stuff well together in his writings, I don't see the points he's bringing on the table are as surprising as some of his sympathizers want to believe.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

I can understand why he's bolstered so much support around here lately -- fanboys love to see their cause given a sophisticated, intellectual feel.

That's not fair. EVERY SINGLE ANALYST. EVERY SINGLE GAMER. EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER. Has been wrong about Wii and continues to be wrong about Wii. Malstrom seems to be the only one who understands the business strategy Nintendo is currently employing and is able to provide an accurate analysis (within a historical context and lens) of what is and what is to come. Quite simply, he's right. The meteroic rise of DS and Wii just marks another paradigm shift, and if the competition continues to focus on strategies which do not move the market forward, things are just going to be different.

 

[border]

People obviously disagree with him on a base level, but having no real ideas and counterarguments to rebutt the points, we've been talking about the quality of his writing is sophmorish or not.

There aren't a lot of counter-arguments in this thread because it's the 3rd thread in a week where the same set of articles have been discussed. It's been done to death, and nobody is interested in repeating themselves just because the moderators don't see fit to merge or lock "repeat" threads.

 

[Deku]

Not talking about style, but content wise most of his points have been mentioned by several users for years.

There's nary a post that can actually say anything about his content however.

The closest I've seen are strawman arguments, such as implying Sean is saying 'copy cat games don't sell' which is not what is not being said at all! They obviously sell enough copies for the immitators to keep trying.

While I agree that he put the stuff well together in his writings, I don't see the points he's bringing on the table are as surprising as some of his sympathizers want to believe.

He doesn't need anyone's sympathy and there are no Sean sympathizers here. Only those who agree with him, and those who don't and resort to ad homenim attacks.

My question is, if his analysis is as obvious as Gitaroo claims or as unsurprising as you note, then they should not incite the kind of knee jerk posts from the likes of Lamamamaa Brave.

 

[Opiate]

Excellent points, Deku.

The systems last generation (particularly the PS2 and Xbox) could stand on their own from a financial standpoint. Now, it appears that all platforms need to be combined (360, PS3, PC) in order to achieve financial viabliity. Even if that strategy IS still viable, it implicitly acknowledges a growing weakness of the individual components.

From a developer's viewpoint, I'm not sure this is a signficant concern. As long as their an entity they can consider a single platform, whether that platform be "PS2" or "Xbox/PS2" or "360/PS3/PC," it is irrelevant who makes or owns which of the individual pieces.

This is not so true from the perspective of console manufacturers or players, however. As a player, fractured console market means I can't necessarily play with my friends (who have different systems but the same game) and I see performance lowered to the common denominator of all the consoles, so that no single version bottlenecks the others. As a console manufacturer, the situation is even more troublesome; you can bet Sony and Microsoft are frantic to avoid the dreaded "PS360" label, where their products are viewed as completely interchangable, virtually identical replicas of each other.

It's not the Playstation brand anymore, or the Xbox brand. It's "things that are made by Nintendo" and "things that are not made by Nintendo."

 

[Mgoblue201]

Actually, quite a bit of the illogic of his article has been addressed by even his most staunch opposition within this thread (or others), which is actually surprising for the average internet thread. There are enough posts lacking in substance to affirm that this is teh internetz of course. But just because so many have refused to admit the truth of the matter doesn't mean that he is correct. He is perhaps more correct, and there is enough in his article that is true, but he rarely addresses causality and makes several suspect statements.

 

[Atreides]

He is doing several predictions, so we'll be able to check if he is right. For now, he has been quite accurate in his predictions, so I think that is just stupid to dismiss the predictions he has done but not yet happened as just "fanboy rants".

 

[King Dork]

Sorry to burst your bubble OP, but most of the things mentioned were points any sane videogamer already knew.

 

[border]

The systems last generation (particularly the PS2 and Xbox) could stand on their own from a financial standpoint.

From whose viewpoint? 1st party, 3rd party? I think that for most third parties that weren't pushing a superstar IP or getting 1st party subsidies, Xbox and Gamecube were not very good choices to make an exclusive game on.

Note how everytime Microsoft dumped a game, the new publisher demanded that a PS2 version be produced (Psychonauts, Oddworld: Stranger).

 

[Deku]

There aren't a lot of counter-arguments in this thread because it's the 3rd thread in a week where the same set of articles have been discussed. It's been done to death, and nobody is interested in repeating themselves just because the moderators don't see fit to merge or lock "repeat" threads.

There are plenty of personal attacks however and knocks on his writing style. Why go to so much trouble discrediting this man if someone could just knock his points down with well thought out reason rather than bloated circuitious, and disingenous hypotheticals as has been attempted a few times by Mr. Brave and FigthyF. The exercise of my pointing out this fact is that I do believe most of here understand underlying thrust of his arguments are correct, even if people disagree with his conclusions on a base level. Thus, they attack the person.

 

[onipex]

So do the people who disagree with him think that Nintendo is only going after the casual gamers and is not competing with Microsoft and Sony?

 

[Neo C.]

My question is, if his analysis is as obvious as Gitaroo claims or as unsurprising as you note, then they should not incite the kind of knee jerk posts from the likes of Lamamamaa Brave.

I don't think they are obvious, at least for those who haven't read something about blue ocean. However, I think we've discussed most of the aspects he mentioned in several threads for years, whether in media create threads or other sales/analysis threads.

I just think it isn't fair to many great users in this forum when someone says something like this:

That's not fair. EVERY SINGLE ANALYST. EVERY SINGLE GAMER. EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER. Has been wrong about Wii and continues to be wrong about Wii.

While most of us were surprised by the enormous impact the wii has created so far, a lot of us know that the wii would be successful after the E3 show of 2006. It's just the immense degree of success which surprised everyone, even Nintendo.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

It just seems as though you are trying too hard to sound smart, and I find that reading through it is tedious.

You sound like one of my English teachers in High School. People who start screaming "convoluted! convoluted!" at the first sign of a vocabulary that has large scope really tend to annoy me. There's nothing wrong with economical and simple language either.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

While most of us were surprised by the enormous impact the wii has created so far, a lot of us know that the wii would be successful after the E3 show of 2006. It's just the immense degree of success which surprised everyone, even Nintendo.

Most gamers would have probably been better for me to say, then.

 

[proposition]

I don't see what's so controversial about his writing style. Conversing with an imaginary audience is a device which ancient authors (like Plato) used.

Plato wrote dialogues between two or more characters, not conversing with an imaginary audience.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Plato wrote dialogues between two or more characters, not conversing with an imaginary audience.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[proposition]

Thank you for the correction.

I'd liken it more to the works of Nietzsche. Scatty and literary, but with a creamy inner filling of clever.

 

[Opiate]

From whose viewpoint? 1st party, 3rd party? I think that for most third parties that weren't pushing a superstar IP or getting 1st party subsidies, Xbox and Gamecube were not very good choices to make an exclusive game on.

Note how everytime Microsoft dumped a game, the new publisher demanded that a PS2 version be produced (Psychonauts, Oddworld: Stranger).

"Viable" does not mean "the most profitable." I am asserting that the Xbox, by itself, was a profitable venture for developers (for the console manufacturer, not so much). Requesting ports to the PS2 does not logically require that the Xbox was a losing proposition for developers: instead, it may mean that the PS2 was more profitable. In other words, they could still make money developing exclusively for the Xbox, but they would make a lot more money developing Xbox/PS2.

I believe that developing en masse for the 360 or PS3 or PC exclusively is no longer a profitable option. Obviously singular cases can be profitable (Gears of War was certainly, I assume R:FoM was for the PS3) but we're talking about the whole picture. When looking at the whole picture, it's clear that multiplatform PS3/360/PC development isn't just a convenience that may make you even more money -- it's a requirement to be profitable.

As you and I have discussed before, third parties are struggling to stay profitable as it is; segmenting the hardcore market even further would be suicide.

 

[border]

There are plenty of personal attacks however and knocks on his writing style.

I never said there weren't. I just said this has already been discussed extensively, and will be discussed less extensively every time someone who can't/won't type "Malstrom" into the Forum Search creates a new thread. If you created 3 threads in a week about a controversial game review, the level of interest and discourse in each subsequent thread is going decrease. This is not evidence of the original review's incisiveness, just a symptom of fatigue from over-discussion.

 

[Opiate]

You sound like one of my English teachers in High School. People who start screaming "convoluted! convoluted!" at the first sign of a vocabulary that has large scope really tend to annoy me. There's nothing wrong with economical and simple language either.

This is the line between convoluted and eloquent speech. If you can't understand what someone is saying, then it's difficult to recognize why one does not understand it. How can one logically derive why one can't understand something?

Consider Joyce's Ulysses, as an example. Lots of poeple can't understand it. So what conclusion should those people draw? Do they not understand it because it's nonsense, or do they not understand it because it's so complicated that it's beyond their immediate apprehension? In this case, I'd propose that most people would assume the latter, because Ulysses is such a highly regarded work.

Now apply that example to this (less extreme, less clear cut) situation. If someone is simply using big words that makes them difficult for a listener to comprehend, does that mean the original speaker is spouting nonsense, or is he applying words in a specific and appropriate manner that the listener is unable to follow?

I'm not saying Liabe is necessarily correct, by the way. I think he has some valid positions, but that's not what this particular post is about: essentially, I'm trying to defend the use of big words. They are frequently abused, but can also be applied correctly and to significant effect.

 

[Atreides]

Actually, quite a bit of the illogic of his article has been addressed by even his most staunch opposition within this thread (or others), which is actually surprising for the average internet thread. There are enough posts lacking in substance to affirm that this is teh internetz of course. But just because so many have refused to admit the truth of the matter doesn't mean that he is correct. He is perhaps more correct, and there is enough in his article that is true, but he rarely addresses causality and makes several suspect statements.

There are two main points in his article of birdmen: most developers are treating the downmarket as stupid users, as we can see by the use of casual as a derogatory term; Nintendo is following the strategy of disruption, therefore they will aim for the umparted, stealing it from the HD systems.

I haven't seen any good arguments against the first point. The arguments against the second one highlight things that he hasn't explained enough in the article, but this article was not intended to explain them anyway. That things are explained in his other articles (some of them haven't been written yet).

The other arguments brought against him are just against some minor points that he made that doesn't really affect the two main points.

My opinion is that he is right about the use of casual as a derogatory term, developers treating the downmarket as stupid users, and Nintendo trying to disrupt the HD systems (therefore trying to take over the upmarket). But I think that some of the particularities of the videogame market are not taken in consideration in his articles. For example, if Wii is going to take over the upmarket, it would mean that software sales for the HD systems need to decrease. That would mean people that own these systems losing interest in them. I find that hard to believe, I think is much more likely that the users will stick with these systems once they have bought them.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

I have no trouble understanding Malstrom's work. It's not that advanced.

 

[Atreides]

I have no problem understanding what he says, and English is not even my mother language.