But who says you can't have an awesome system that is also a big financial success? I would obviously prefer that.
That is easier said than done though, especially these days. Power costs money. Development time costs money. Competing costs money.
And it's only getting worse.
As customers, all we want is a system full of support and that will last a long time. But to provide that, businesses pretty much have to stick with the status quo. The Wii proved that third parties are more interested in selling to all systems than to one system, no matter how significant the market share. But to stick to the status quo would mean to commoditize games. So instead of systems built to make games - systems would be built to serve them instead; offering different advantages and features, but pretty much the same experience. As customers, this would be the best thing that could happen to the price of games, but also the worse thing to happen to innovation.
Nintendo was the biggest success this generation because they innovated. They brought something new to the table and people found it irresistible. A fresh experience to old and new gamers alike. And despite the lack of support, they made more money than their competitors combined. So while the market is screaming for commoditization, people are buying innovation.
So as a console maker, what do you do? Commoditizing games will lower development cost and garner more support, but innovation has the chance to make you different and commercially viable. So which one do you choose?
I hope Nintendo knows they answer.
Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt* (Read 3153534 times)
