Anybody can write a damn dissertation on why they know the best, but it sure as hell doesn't mean they do (see Mein Kampf).
You get points for working Slashdot and Hitler into the same post, but you don't do anything constructive.
As KDR said, he sources a lot more than anyone I've come across in the "gaming-journalism-slash-rant" field. And he's actually looking at this from an industry-wide perspective, rather than rooting for the home team. Throwing stones only looks cool when everyone else joins in.
If their business strategy was so bad, how are they all still in business?
This comes down to the "smart third party survives, dumb third party gets caught in the headlights or consumed by the third party food chain". Sony and Microsoft have lost
billions in recent years. Analysts are saying the industry is stagnating. Doing "more of the same" is asking for disaster. You could draw parallels with other industries (Microsoft's attempted takeover of Yahoo is a recent example), so why is there this overall feeling that the gaming industry is in a bubble safe from consequence or responsibility?
I use the term bubble because it is fragile and finite. Think about it.
Nintendo saw their marketshare diminishing and acted, they considered this fact before considering the market as a whole.
Bullshit. I'm calling this out right now. The Gamecube generation showed Nintendo is willing to stick to its guns, irrespective of criticism. They remained profitable during their lowest ebb, while bringing up the rear in the marketshare stakes. And most analysts said Nintendo's stake in this gen would be "more of the same", even after the Wii's unveiling.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But it discredits and over-simplifies the hard work of people who are innovating in the industry, irrespective of their chosen field.
The biggest problem I have with this guy's writing is how he seemingly ignores the fact that games are multifaceted. He simplifies it all to the point where games are business and if you are lucky enough one day they will be considered art.
Hate to break it to you, but the games industry remains a business at its core, no matter which products are churned out or the sentimental value attached to them. You can look at the luminaries like Kojima, Miyamoto, Dyack, or whomever else you choose to put on a pedestal and try to think it is more than this. But ultimately, if the venture is not a profitable one, then the investors are pouring money down a hole. You can cite marketshare or mindshare here as *things* of value, but these both pale in significance compared to cold hard cash.
I'm reminded of a discussion I had at uni with a lecturer about software engineering. He compared his appreciation of fine wine to an appreciation of cola by talking about a friend who remarked, after drinking from a can of cola, described it as "great". Who's place is it for the lecturer to discredit the person by saying that he's an idiot and has no taste? Trying to claim games as artwork at any stage of time is just as pretentious, because, like art galleries, some people just don't get it.
I disagree, how can you remove those sales and just assume that every dollar spent there wouldn't have been spent on some other gaming item?
Do you see the casual gamers flocking to the other systems? I'm with Deg on this, I feel that the Wii's and DS's successes have helped stave off the inevitable, and distract from the real issues.
this seems to be an anti-mr-jack attack, but its really just me highlighting how stupid some viewpoints are. i have no beef with these viewpoints, but i feel they deserve to be challenged