Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Ian's not wrongI don't think he's wrong per se. I just don't get why one would continue to engage in something one finds disappointing.
I'm not against cynicism. There are times when it's appropriate. I think he can stand to temper his vitriol in light of major strides Nintendo has made as of late. I'm not saying we break out the champagne and celebrate. I'm not even suggesting blind optimism. I disagree with the constant negativity.
I talk about third party support a lot so I figured I would add my two cents. I would certainly like it if Nintendo worked hard at better third party relationships but they've said this before, so I'm going to be skeptical.
Does anyone know what the net profit/loss is for the xbox 360 at this point? I know they spent billions on it and they were in the red for a long time, but right now the 360 is the best selling console on the market and it has been that way for awhile, so are they out of the red yet? If the 360 ultimately became profitable then that would be all the more reason why Microsoft would want to repeat that strategy.
As we've seen, Nintendo is perfectly capable of getting by with a console that is a generation behind, but can Sony do that? If the PS4 ends up being a generation behind the 420 will Sony be able to survive? On the other hand, they could beef the PS4 up to match the 420, but do they have enough money to do this again? This is the dilemma they face, and either way they might be screwed.
I'm going to disagree with the majority, in that I agree with Nintendo's reluctance to show future titles. First, it keeps the competition guessing as to your strategy. But more importantly, it allows Nintendo to go all out next E3, stealing the attention away from Sony and Microsoft's next consoles. Timing is as important as the nature of your news. Could Nintendo have shown one major game to create a positive impression? Sure, (and I don't think Pikmin 3 was this game) but I think having mostly tech demos to stimulate the imagination of your audience is sufficient for now. The whole point is to not be forgotten next year when the competition increases.Your point that they need to have a good showing next year when they're going to have to compete with the next generation consoles is a good one. The only thing I wonder is if by that time, it's already going to be too late to have a chance to capture the core gaming audience. Many seem to have already lost interest and forgotten and the system isn't even out. Maybe I'm crazy but this feels like the WiiU could end up like the Dreamcast, caught half way in between generations and people will take a wait and see approach and end up choosing the next Sony or Microsoft consoles because they're far ahead technologically. Obviously, Nintendo is in a completely different place financially and Nintendo's first party games are superior and they're coming off of the best selling console of last generation so it's a different situation so who knows. I want the WiiU to be successful but I just don't see that being the most likely scenario at this point.
I remember prior to the Gamecube launch the big challenge was getting people to pay attention. It really seemed that outside the Nintendo fanbase their wasn't much coverage of the Cube. I found it very frustrating to see it ignored by magazines and web sites like it was a non-factor before it even came out.
Nintendo should want to get people talking and that doesn't happen if you're all private about things and save announcements for Nintendo-only events. If Nintendo has a game in the works that would create a major buzz, that isn't due until some time in 2013, they could still potentially sell Wii U's on the hype of that title alone. Or at least keep people interested until that title comes out. If you blow the chance to grab their attention when are people going to suddenly care? You could release a game they want next year but they might NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT because if they've already written the Wii U off and how much effort are they going to put in to keep up to date with a system they don't care about? If someone is not interested in Nintendo they will not pay any attention to Nintendo Direct. Everyone pays attention to E3. If you make a splash there you might enter the field of vision of people who otherwise don't care about you.
Of course this was the first impression and they blew it. So good luck getting anyone who's written off the Wii U to ever pay attention again. It's much easier to get general interest in "the new Nintendo console" than "the new games for that existing Nintendo console that you don't own or care about". Next E3, gamers who don't already own a Wii U will pay less attention to Nintendo's showing. The first E3 appearance of a system always attracts the most general attention.
I think the series could definitely use more fear and surprise.
WW2 would fit the bill, because it could have the Gestapo trying to hunt you down and so it would be like the Spanish Inquisition only more modern and therefore more fresh.
I'm just going to say this: If people just bought a Wii and nothing else, the attach ratio wouldn't have been near PS3 levels for the longest time. The revisionist history (now hardware sales don't determine first place in konsole warz?) and anger from the typical message board hardcore (who is increasingly more obnoxious with every year with their annoying entitlement and hatred of other people entering their hobby) for the Wii and now Wii U is just sad to me. I sort of hope the Wii U does extremely well, just to see the whining and excuses being made by the Western press and gamers. It will be a sight to behold just like it was this past generation with the Wii's success. Because between gamers and Nintendo, I have to choose the lesser of two evils, and that's unfortunately Nintendo.
I like this guy..That just highlights to me that a truly astounding amount of people bought Wiis as novelty gadgets and never used them again after they got tired of Wii Sports/Fit.
I really am unconvinced with this myth. The Wii has a tie ratio above 7 last I checked. That tells me that people are buying games beyond just Wii Sports and Wii Fit.
Remember, people who complain about these sort of things on the internet don't count Zumba Fitness and Just Dance as real games, so to them they might as well be Wii Sports and Wii Fit.
I definitely think in the last couple years the share of Nintendo in terms of software has dropped. This is also partly tied into the amount of new Wii hardware that Nintendo is moving. I think this is simply a matter of two very simple, straightforward things as opposed to any grand sweeping shift in consumer behavior:
1. The Wii is at the end of its console life cycle. Nintendo seems to be more in line with a traditional 5-year cycle with their system versus the longer tails and higher future-proofing of the XBox 360 and PS3 hardware. As a result I'm not too surprised to see Wii software and hardware slowing down.
2. The Wii doesn't have the third-party support that would traditionally hide/make-up-for the shift of first-party resources into new console development. As a result, this makes the petering-off effect even more apparent.
Also, as regards tie-ratios, I know it's not official, but Gamasutra has a decent enough rep that I feel relatively safe using their informed speculation as regards to tie-ratios:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6350/npd_behind_the_numbers_march_2011.php?page=3
Well, even though I'm sure EA bases all their decisions on money, and money alone....if we lived in a strange alternate dimension where EA considered game design, gameplay, and the feasibility of such in terms of hardware platforms....I don't see Dead Space as a whole working well on the Wii U. How would they use the Gamepad screen? It seems like one of the central UI tenets of the game is an economy of iconography on a single screen. There are no menus or inventory screens (well, kinda, but not really, because you always view Isaac's backside and the surroundings). They've integrated everything onto the main screen, and the blue light pretty much eliminates the need for a mini-map. So except for maybe a lock-picking or computer-hacking mini-game (and if I get paid a nickel every time a Wii-U game will use that in the next 5 years, I will be a rich man) what could they throw down there on the gamepad?
That data you linked is 4 and a half years old. The ration is probably completely different now.
That just highlights to me that a truly astounding amount of people bought Wiis as novelty gadgets and never used them again after they got tired of Wii Sports/Fit.
I really am unconvinced with this myth. The Wii has a tie ratio above 7 last I checked. That tells me that people are buying games beyond just Wii Sports and Wii Fit.
I probably will be let down by this, it would not be the first time. Rewatching the demo makes the me think the path he took was a little too slick and scripted. I got hyped and then disappointed by the following games this gen:
Bioshock - Promoted as a morally gray free-roaming shooter with interesting enemies, situations and weapons. Turned out to be a good linear FPS with a couple of cool tricks that storywise ran on too long.
Asassin's Creed - Promoted as a gorgeous gigantic Sandbox game in a unique setting. Turned out to be empty and repetitive.
Alan Wake - Promoted as an amazing supernatural mystery game with tons of style set in a fantastic little Pacific Northwest town. Turned out to be 75% running around in the woods shooting the same pseudo zombies over and over while your flashlight ran out of batteries. The combat was so repetitive it felt like a bad rail shooter in parts.
As the largest Japanese company, it boggles my mind to hear concerns over Nintendo's strategy.
I swear, if the vocal minority had their way, they'd want Nintendo to go third party and develop for NextBox. Why? So they don't have to buy Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games.
And these are supposedly long time fans of Nintendo.
Fusing all the music games is an impossible task. Licensing will kill any possibility.
Smart glass won't get more support since 1,it isn't built in. 2, requires outside hardware no one controls, therefore extremely unpredictable. 3, it is inherently less capable than the Gamepad.
Smart glass might be more "portable", but portability isn't a concern for the functions that the Gamepad is meant to do. Smart glass is mostly FUD inorder to blunt Nintendo's advantage.
I'd argue if the gamepad is more capable than a tablet.
That and I think tut while they aren't going after the same thing you are highly underestimating Microsoft's ability to go to a pub or dev pull out. Blank check and say put kinect and Smartglass into your game and we will cover the marketing budget and some of the dev costs.
I mean they already had a proof of concept of Madden and Wii U couldn't even get that.
