Author Topic: Forbes: Kaplan Interview  (Read 19645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2006, 11:49:22 AM »
"Ian, Brain Training and Electroplankton were both also very low budget titles. I'm willing to bet they both exceeded the cost it took to make them in their launch week, and their being out isn't hurting anyone."

I used those two as an example but in general I'm refering to all DS games that are low on depth and have been totally sh!tted on by reviewers, the quirky mini-game types.  Supposedly these games aren't expensive to make and don't eat up resources but that doesn't change the fact that for the first six months or so of the DS there were virtually no games that really fit the "traditional" mold.  It was all "simple games" or "non-games".  If these didn't take up Nintendo resources then why was their such a lack of variety?  If Nintendo really wanted to appeal to both existing gamers and non-gamers and were capable of doing so I think they would have had a more filled up lineup.  Ideally the flow of "traditional" games should virtually not change if these titles don't eat up much resources.  But it DID and that's discouraging.

"Gone. Does not exist. That's why Nintendo's going with this nongamer strategy; more effective than chasing after those gamers."

Maybe Nintendo should examine WHY those "casual Nintendo gamers" left in the first place.  It wasn't because Sony brainwashed them or that they lost interest in gaming.  It directly relates to really dumb decisions Nintendo has made.  People have left less because of Sony attracting them but rather Nintendo turning them away.

Offline Deguello

  • Cards makes me ill.
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2006, 12:10:19 PM »
"It was a tongue in cheek comment, but I don't get the point. Are you saying Nintendo's gamers just switch to PlayStations like the rest of the masses? Or what? "

40-year-olds don't play videogames.  Period.  The "one you know" doesn't count.  If this was the "Casual Nintendo base" that Sony is "thieving," this is all hogwash.  Sony attracted new people.

"I used those two as an example but in general I'm refering to all DS games that are low on depth and have been totally sh!tted on by reviewers, the quirky mini-game types. Supposedly these games aren't expensive to make and don't eat up resources but that doesn't change the fact that for the first six months or so of the DS there were virtually no games that really fit the "traditional" mold. It was all "simple games" or "non-games". If these didn't take up Nintendo resources then why was their such a lack of variety? If Nintendo really wanted to appeal to both existing gamers and non-gamers and were capable of doing so I think they would have had a more filled up lineup. Ideally the flow of "traditional" games should virtually not change if these titles don't eat up much resources. But it DID and that's discouraging."

It's time you saw the future while you still have human eyes.

... and those eyes see a 3DS system code : 2750-1598-3807

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2006, 12:43:42 PM »
Quote

40-year-olds don't play videogames. Period. The "one you know" doesn't count. If this was the "Casual Nintendo base" that Sony is "thieving," this is all hogwash. Sony attracted new people.


Are we having different discussions? I did say Sony expanded the market.  
"wow."

Offline Deguello

  • Cards makes me ill.
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2006, 01:16:37 PM »
Right, and did NOT attract "loyal old-strategy customers since the NES" who don't play videogames anymore.  Because they would be at LEAST 27 years old, and you can't play videogames after that and not be a developmentally stunted manchild unless you work in the industry.

The market hasn't really expanded since 1995.  Around the same amount of Saturns, N64s and PSXs were sold in the same time span as GCs, Xboxs, and PS2s.  Maybe even more.

Of course this is just the Console market.  If you wanna get groady, Nintendo still controls more than 50% of the VIDEOGAME market (which includes handhelds)  As the Numbers of GCs, GBAs, and DS's outsell PS2s and PSPs and Xboxes and Xbox 360's  
It's time you saw the future while you still have human eyes.

... and those eyes see a 3DS system code : 2750-1598-3807

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2006, 01:50:48 PM »
Are you for real? Seriously. Dude, I am 27 and got an NES in its second year. What is this "40 year old" stuff? And who are you to tell me I'm developmentally stunted for playing games at 27? And you write for PGC? Damn.

Video games are a subset of pop culture. There are LOTS of 30+ people playing video games out there. And I would hardly call them developmentally stunted manchildren. That's completely asinine. Read up on your demographic data.  Get a clue and try not to think so lowly of grown up players that you have no business judging.

www.TheESA.com

The market certainly hasn't shrunk. IF you're correct in saying it hasn't expanded either, then that can only mean it's remained mostly constant. So since Nintendo's market has been ever-shrinking, then someone DID take those players away. Sega, for one, opened the gaping wound of perception that Nintendo was for kids and passe. Nintendo still hasn't developed an answer to that perception 3 generations later. They embrace it and continue to pay for it.  
"wow."

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2006, 01:59:40 PM »
"40-year-olds don't play videogames. Period. The 'one you know' doesn't count. If this was the 'Casual Nintendo base' that Sony is 'thieving,' this is all hogwash. Sony attracted new people."

Funny how I played the NES and I'm only 24.  And I would consider anyone who also owns the SNES as part of the "casual Nintendo base" since that relates to when Nintendo was on top.  I was 13 when the N64 launched.  Out of everyone I knew who owned a console only one owned a Genesis.  Everyone else was SNES.  Almost all of them switched to the Playstation.  Very few stuck with Nintendo because Nintendo's severe cartridge blunder scared off the third parties and too many of the games they wanted to play were on Sony's console.  Maybe a lot of those people aren't playing games anymore but that set the current userbase for Sony.  I think they attracted a lot of other people but they stole tons of existing gamers from Nintendo.  Or more accurately Nintendo gave them to Sony.

Online ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2006, 04:15:58 PM »
you were 13?  I was 12,  but im almost 22(in march!)...that doesnt add up!

but yeah one o f my best  friends is 27, he's an obsessed Nintendo fan.  He's  a gamer who had an atari and then moved onto  Nintendo when it came out.
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2006, 04:37:44 PM »
"but that doesn't change the fact that for the first six months or so of the DS there were virtually no games that really fit the "traditional" mold"

It's been another six months since that six months ended, and the DS is doing fine.  So what exactly is your point?
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline mantidor

  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2006, 04:46:57 PM »
All this "mature gamers" and "mature games" stuff has nothing to do with success of a franchise or a system. What are the top selling franchises? Mario, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Tetris and Zelda. If I go down the list, the number of "mature" and "lol k!ddie" franchises is almost equal (surpassed by those "rated E" by a small margin of course), this so called maturity as well as older gamers arent the big deal that the gaming press and forumites want to make it be.

"You borrow style elements from 20yr old scifi flicks and 10 yr old PC scifi flight shooters, and you add bump mapping and TAKE AWAY character, and you got Halo." -Pro

Offline BiLdItUp1

  • Brain Parasite
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2006, 05:07:56 PM »
You're right mantidor - a couple of mature games alone don't ensure a system's success. There needs to be variety, and I think we all know that, in comparison with the competition (and especially in the last two years), there hasn't been enough variety on the Cube. PS2 had the edgy Jak, Ratchet and Clank, and Sly Cooper to combat the Mario platformer, of which we only got one, and Ico (among others) to offset Zelda. But the Cube had nothing to counterpoint Halo (as a multiplayer FPS, not a general multiplayer) or GTA (to pick just one game, cuz there are SO MANY) on PS2. The mature games happen to be the ones generally lacking for Nintendo's lineup. There seems to be no similar lack on the my post is a train wreck/Sony side concerning Nintendo's 'everyone' games, which are again covered not by one big title, but by a couple of smaller ones.

----
[devil's advocate]
Despite all this, the Cube only sold about a million, a million and a half less than the Xbox in the US and clobbered it in Japan. Unless they really f*ck this one up, there's nowhere to go but up, especially with the ridiculously bad worldwide launch by my post is a train wreck.
[/devil's advocate]
All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. (George Orwell, more relevant than ever, in "Politics and the English Language")
Wii Number: 7947 2653 6155 9540

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2006, 05:53:24 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: mantidor
All this "mature gamers" and "mature games" stuff has nothing to do with success of a franchise or a system. What are the top selling franchises? Mario, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Tetris and Zelda. If I go down the list, the number of "mature" and "lol k!ddie" franchises is almost equal (surpassed by those "rated E" by a small margin of course), this so called maturity as well as older gamers arent the big deal that the gaming press and forumites want to make it be.



You're 100% correct. No group or genre should be catered to (and that should also include Nintendo catering to their franchises). They just shouldn't be ignored through lack of variety either, as BiLd mentions. A few good token games sprinkled throughout a system's life is not adequate coverage.  
"wow."

Offline mantidor

  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2006, 05:54:18 PM »
lol Ico to off set Zelda, sorry but thats hilarious!

Anyway, theres a reason Nintendo got all Resident Evils, which didnt turn out as well as we wouldve hoped, but its not to say that Nintendo isnt trying, they will never make these "mature" games, its against their philosophy of making a game that anyone can pick up, thats why they relay on third parties for that. They are out there trying to get the most variety possible, so I dont see why we should complain.

"You borrow style elements from 20yr old scifi flicks and 10 yr old PC scifi flight shooters, and you add bump mapping and TAKE AWAY character, and you got Halo." -Pro

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2006, 06:15:10 PM »
As was mentioned, Nintendo sets the pace. If they just recycle their IPs and make "safe" games, then that's all that is going to sell across the board, barring a few exceptions.  They don't need GTA, but they would do better to set the pace by launching with more GOOD western style games in addition to their standby formula. And KEEP them coming. Relying on 3rd parties won't work. They likely just won't risk it after seeing what happened this generation.

They did try, yes. But now they should know that they can't put toothpaste back in the tube. They set the pace. They haven't discussed too much about their lineup yet, but we will definitely see if they learned their lesson or not at E3. The potential for FPS type games is obvious, but we'll see if they bothered to do anything with it.  
"wow."

Offline Khushrenada

  • is an Untrustworthy Liar
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2006, 06:47:00 PM »
What if Nintendo bought Take-Two?

According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?

Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.
 
Whoever said, "Cheaters never win" must've never met Khushrenada.

Offline Pryopizm

  • Staff Jedis-Are-Evil
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2006, 08:57:54 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: BigJim


Quote

Microsoft's XBox division are "cool." They're "mature." Yet, they also made a net loss in the billions last gen, and their attempt to storm Japan with Eurocentric videogames somehow failed. Interesting strategy to say the least.


Come again? Is there a direct correlation between "cool" and red ink? This money-in-the-bank thing comes up constantly, but the picture isn't as rosey when you remove portable sales and look at console sales, which Nintendo tries not to do in their financials, IIRC. You don't have to lose a billion a year to be "cool." There's no direct correlation and that defense is pointless.


Is this the Revolution forum?  I didn't bother checking since I was just here to respond to Ian.  As far as next-gen is concerned, I think I should point out that currently Nintendo and Sony have a combined 0% market share and are losing miserably to Microsoft's 100% dominance.

"Bullets, my only weakness.  How did you know?"

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2006, 09:50:02 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Khushrenada
What if Nintendo bought Take-Two?

According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?

Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.


Interesting proposition. I'm not sure what effect Take-Two would have. Would they release another GTA (as we know it) with all the problems they're having? Would Nintendo let them if they owned them? GTA might have passed its apex if they can't replicate the violent style. But under the surface there is solid gameplay mechanics. They're capable if there's still room for growth in the genre.

Nintendo's best 2 consoles... Personally or analytically? Personally I liked NES and N64 (in that order). Mainly because they had the games I was most fond of. SMB3, LOZ, Mario 64, Zelda:TOOT. But the list goes on.
"wow."

Offline thejeek

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2006, 12:16:59 AM »
Quote

What if Nintendo bought Take-Two?

According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?


I can't imagine Nintendo wanting Take-Two - they just don't seem to see the value in the GTA franchise. I think they'd regard it as somehow unsporting to be successful selling games like GTA.

Quote


Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.


I'm torn between the SNES and the Gamecube. I remember having a lot of fun on the SNES but I'm not sure how much of that is looking back through rose-tinted specs - a lot of the games were hard, unforgiving and repetative whereas on the Cube this is less common. I never had an N64 - couldn't afford one, couldn't afford the games :-(

Offline BiLdItUp1

  • Brain Parasite
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2006, 03:40:00 AM »
Nintendo buying Take Two...maybe for 2K Sports, but no...I don't even think I'd do it for that. The company, other than GTA (even including GTA, since Hot Coffee) seems to be a sinking ship, ppl are very gloom and doom about them right now. (And I don't think Sid Meier's enough. Besides, has Nintendo EVER actually bought a developer the size of Take Two? Those dudes are mammoth.)

And yes, in retrospect, Ico vs. Zelda was a stupid comparison, scratch that. The fact remains that Sony offers more variety than Nintendo does - Ico just popped in my head for some reason. I'm talking about sheer numbers here, not one really great game (say like Resident Evil, which didn't pan out because of Capcom's idiocy). They may not do Nintendo-style games as well as Nintendo, but the sheer numbers seem to offset that. One RRBG, like ResEvil, doesn't seem to work for them.  
All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. (George Orwell, more relevant than ever, in "Politics and the English Language")
Wii Number: 7947 2653 6155 9540

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2006, 06:35:56 AM »
"Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite."

SNES is by far number one.  Best system ever.  Number 2 would be the N64 because due to having anti-videogame parents I never owned an NES so I didn't get to play it as much as a wanted and today I find a lot of the top NES games to be a little dated.  The N64 had lousy third party support but the first party games were pretty much the best games of all time so that balanced things out a lot.

Nintendo buying Take-Two wouldn't do much I think.  GTA is a killer app this last gen but it won't be next gen.  That's how killer apps work.  They can remain big sellers but the games that really sell consoles are always new or they're a major revision of an old franchise to that point that they're new again (like Super Mario 64).  That was a problem with Resident Evil.  Was RE a good catch?  Sure was.  But it wasn't something that should be relied upon to be a killer app.  RE was a killer app on the Playstation.  If I own a Playstation I don't NEED a Cube to have that RE experience.  Sure I might miss out on some games but I'm not missing out on a whole experience.  With the Cube it's like Nintendo noticed that Mario and Zelda sold N64s and they assumed that that meant franchises sell consoles.  WRONG.  Those games sold N64s because of the new experience they provided.  So Nintendo's "who are you?" campaign was a flop because few buy a new console to play the stuff they already played last gen.  Sure there were new games on the Cube like Pikmin and Metroid Prime but Nintendo didn't push that in their marketing.  All they focused on was the franchises so everyone thought it was just the same old same old.

The most important thing for a console is variety.  The "winner" is always the one with the most variety.  NES, SNES, PS, PS2.  The bottom feeder consoles are the ones with the least variety.  Nintendo should always be looking at their lineup and asking what's missing in a big way and then trying to address that.  And variety means genres and styles.  So no more "90% of our games look like Sesame Street" or "every second game is a Mario Party or Mario sports title".

Offline Spak-Spang

  • The Frightened Fox
  • Score: 39
    • View Profile
    • MirandaNew.com
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2006, 07:14:24 AM »
Ian Sane:  I don't 100% agree with what you say about how Killer Apps work.  I don't think they are always something new, or great revisions of an old franchise.  Especially with Nintendo.

Killer Apps:

Super Mario Brothers:  Yes this fits your defination.
Super Mario Brothers 3:  This boardline fits your defination.  Lots of new game mechanics added, but still the same game.
Super Mario World:  Nothing new but a fantastic game.
Super Mario 64:  Yes this fits your defination completely.

Zelda:
The Legend of Zelda:  Fits your defination.
Link to The Past: Does fit your defination it is just a really great enhancement.

Final Fantasy series
Final Fantasy 7:  Really doesn't fit your defination, just had higher production values.

Grand Theft Auto Series:
Grand Theft Auto 3 fits your defination but...
San Andres doesn't.

Halo Series:  Neither fits your defination.  Both were just first person shooters.

Goldeneye:  Kinda fits.  The First console FPS that really pushed the limits closer to computer FPS.

Smash Brothers:  The first fits, but was never a killer App
Melee doesn't fit and was a killer app.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.


Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2006, 07:50:15 AM »
I don't really consider titles like Super Mario World to be killer apps.  Sonic came out on the Genesis the same year and created more buzz.  I consider titles like Street Fighter II and Donkey Kong Country to be the SNES killer apps.

Stuff like Super Mario Bros 3 and San Andreas don't count because they're not the game that really pushed things.  Super Mario Bros and GTA3 were the original killer apps.  People who bought a console for those other sequels were really buying the system for the series in general which was overall new.

I think being perceived as new is a key factor as well.  I don't think Halo is new but it is a new franchise and it introduced a very PC-style game to the console games.  For someone who hasn't played PC first person shooters it was new (Goldeneye came before but plays different then a PC FPS).  FF VII really wasn't that new but the production values at the time were unique.  DKC is a like another Mario game but the graphics style was unique and different.

Everyone is going to have slightly different opinions on what game is a killer app for what console.  What games I consider killer apps all fall into my rules.  In general though my point makes sense in that you can't just say "hey look we've got this major franchise you all bought last gen" and rely on that to sell consoles.  Having something unique and marketing it well is going to have a better chance of catching on.

Offline Spak-Spang

  • The Frightened Fox
  • Score: 39
    • View Profile
    • MirandaNew.com
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2006, 12:00:16 PM »
I guess we have different definations of Killier Apps.

I look back and remember games that were exclusive that everyone enjoyed or wanted to play as Killer Apps.  They may not have initially pushed the system, but their presence on the system definately helped secure the system.

And Sonic might of had more media and press, but it never really changed the market any.

I also consider the big sequels Killer apps, because IF they were released on another system the buzz would have been so large, it would have created huge buying power for the other system.  So keeping the sequel exclusive for your system is important.  

Look at Perfect Dark Zero.  It didn't matter if it was good or bad.  The fact that Nintendo lost the game, and Microsoft picked it up for Xbox 360 was huge and drew alot of attention.  Now, everyone knows it was more hype than a great experience...but the initial hype helped create a semi killer app for Xbox 360.  

Speaking of 360, when are they going to get their first killer app?  So far there is no need to own a Xbox 360.

Offline antman100

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2006, 05:30:41 PM »
Meanwhile at the hall of Justice:  
From a marketing standpoint, the Blue/Red Ocean paradigm has been around for a couple years now.  A lot of companies are using it to justify branching out into new areas, or removing themselves from others.  My company is also using this strategy to develop a new division.  As an employee, I'm intrigued by the concept.  But as a stockholder, I also a little worried.  The Blue Ocean theory only works if it is something that the consumer WANTS or there is a real market for.  You have to hope the 'higher-ups' know what the hell they are doing.

Did the RevMote re-define gaming?  We're all going to have answer that question, but not for a couple years.  Just because Nintendo says this is a Blue Ocean does not make it so.  The Revolution could be the Bermuda Triangle (to stretch an analogy).  I wish I could say I was more optimistic.  I have a feeling I will wait 6 months or for the first price drop to decide if I should get the Revo.

Always look for the Blue Ocean, but don't be afraid to mix it up in the Red.  Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be the AND console.

Offline animecyberrat

  • Official NWR Lindsay Lohan Fan
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2006, 02:03:13 PM »
well ok you must have short term memory if you dont think SONIC changed anything. Sonic made a MAJOR impact when it was first released and Genesis sales SKY ROCKETED afterwards, not to mention that the sonic games WERE KILLER APPS for Genesis.

And Nintendo didnt win the SNES era, they and Sega pretty much tied, unless you count neo geo and turbo Graphx they were on sale those same years and they both pretty much flopped.


GTA adn FF have pretty much lost hier luster as far as gamers are concernd and proably wont matter much next gen at all. Same think happened to Sonic, his games deteriorated in quality adn his fanbase started to shrink so I think Sonic is going to have to make major changes before people will notice it again.


Mario is iffy, way back when Super Mario Bros was THE game to get a NES for, then when SNES came out it had to compete with SMB3 for attention, I distinctly remeber holding off on getting a SNES BECAUSE we just got SMB3 and it offered very similar mechanics to SMW. I remeber playing SMW at my frinds ouse and wanting a SNES but SMB3 was more than enough to distract me for a long time, and by teh time my parents were willing to invest ina  enw systems Sonic came out and won us over so we skipped SNEs for Genesis, and I was a BIG TIME  Nintendo fan at that time so to jump ship for Sonic was a big deal but sinced SMB3 satisfied me for Mario and Sonic overshadoed SMW at the time I was pretty well off. It wasnt untill after N64 came out that I had found enough games on SNES that WERENT on Genesis to get me to buy the system.


When Saturn and PS came out I skipped both cuz N64 just looked better and i had too much invested in Genesis to replace it with Saturn and my SNES was a bargain purchase so N64 wasa no brainer for me. but that chanegd a year latter when FF7 came along, seing how much I enjoyed FF3 so much and how cool the commercial was I just HAD to have that game so I abadnoned my 64 for PS. I did keep my 64 and eventualy got more games for it than PS since FF7 and 8 were basicaly the only games I liked on it.

BUt Game Cubne has been so different. I originaly was expecting it to sell because of the franchises, all my friends owned N64s for Smash Bros and Zelda so i natrualy expected them to get GCs for teh same games, liek I did, but when the time came they were split, most went with PS2 becauuse of DVD and games like GTA3 and Ratchet and Clank. It wasnt until after having them over playing Mario Party 4 and SSBM one nite did I convicne them to give GC a chance, but by then it was too late they all told me they were sick of playing the same old crap and wanted something new, and thast what PS2 offerd.


Now for the REv it is looking like theres a REALLY BIG chance Nintendo can pull it off since they are goiong for something new and original plus they are offering old favorites that many people will want to revisit.


I am willing to wager money that the REV will not only fair better this coming Gen but I actualy expect it to totaly blow the others away, and I honestly do realisticaly think that theres a chance eitehr SOny or MS will fold as a result. BUT it all ways has and always will depend on the GAMES.  Nintendo didnt do so well tios gen because of the games but next Gen if they fix some mistakes they should be ok. I also knwo a lot more people who are interested in the rev right now way more than PS3 just because they are growing tired of the same old stuff and ps3 is just more of the same.









"You can call me THE RAT, thank you very much"

Offline darknight06

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Forbes: Kaplan Interview
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2006, 07:04:00 AM »
Sonic wasn't special dude, ever.  It's part of the reason his current games suck.