Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Pureauthor said:
I was just pointing out how miraculous it is that a sequel for Sin and Punishment is being developed.
If that doesn't mean Nintendo loves
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results for June 2009
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
I was just pointing out how miraculous it is that a sequel for Sin and Punishment is being developed.
If that doesn't mean Nintendo loves
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Opiate said:
I'm glad you posted this, as it is the very point that I was driving at. The JRPG genre, moreso than many other popular genres, is not driven by technology. Players happily buy remakes with minor tweaks of games that are over 15 years old, and with gusto. And, as a genre it is a very poor parallel for the western action gaming market, which is primarily driven by multiplatform releases, whereas the jrpg market has nearly always been driven by exclusives. Yes, they could have tried to build a shooter base by releasing every great shooter for the DS, but the moment one showed up on an HD console the charade would be over.
EA could not, tomorrow, announce that Madden 2010 and FIFA 2010 were exclusive for DS and be taken seriously by football fans accustomed to 3D football.
Epic, Valve, and IW could not make, for example, Gears of War 3, Half Life 3, Modern Warfare 3 exclusively for DS and expect console gamers to just stop playing Halo and start playing games with N64 graphics and limited online options again, as Square Enix managed to get owners of the 3D DQ8 to buy the 2D DQ9. Halo, by itself, would trounce those franchises if they were all DS exclusives from the start of the generation because of the nature of Western shooter fans.
Very recently, we saw that Rockstar games could not get a significant chunk of the GTA fanbase to swing back to top down gameplay just to play a new game in the series, despite it being very well received by critics.
You could not rerelease the most popular shooters from 10-15 years ago with touchscreen controls and sell 1 million copies at full price on DS, the fanbase for these games has "moved on". Gamers balked at paying full price for ports of Riddick and FEAR, which aren't exactly as ancient as FF 3.
Similar to shooters, open world games, 3D action adventure games, sim racing games, and WRPGs, all of which figured heavily into the PS2/Xbox/GCN gen, would not gracefully transition to the DS, and would be largely ignored no matter how much developers (or Nintendo) tried to force the issue.
Pureauthor
Member
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Alright, whether or not Nintendo (and 3rd party devs) could have forced a migration of genres to the DS is one discussion, but most of your examples completely miss the point.
Of course releasing those games you listed tomorrow for the DS aren't going to work, because there is already an established base for those games on other systems, and we are at minimum 3 years into any other viable system's life. That's the whole issue that Opiate (and others) were talking about, the idea that if you want a genre or group of games to come to a system, you have to start early and hard, showing 'look, these games are viable on the system' very early in its life before the stigmas and generalizations and whatnot have time to set in. And that's why many now claim the Wii will never be home to the majority of third party support - not because they couldn't, but because they squandered what chance they had.
Also, wRPGs are tech-driven? What?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ellu5xXNmYslegend166 said:
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Regulus Tera said:
One game doesn't mean much. It is about consistency. Nintendo had a good first half of 2008 but the second half was god awful and so was the first half of 2009. They are completely coasting at this point.
It is about creating a solid enough system with a diverse amount of software to appeal to several demographics. This was how things were done with the PS2, PS1, NES, etc. but for whatever reason is forgotten this generation. The systems this generation seem to be polarized. The Wii, PS3, and 360 sales, at least in the US, show that gamers in general seem to be split in half. About 22 million for PS3/360 vs. 20 million for the Wii.
The Experiment said:
It's closer to 24 million for PS360 actually.
But at least you managed to ignore everything else I said. Nevermind that development cycles for major games are a bit longer and require more people (as evidenced by how one team was working on Animal Crossing: City Folk, Wii Sports Resort, and Wii Music at the same time).
Nintendo can't be expected to do everything. They have their old fanbase, and they make games for them (a lot of games for them, actually). Then they have their new fanbase, and they make games for them too.
They're putting out new entries to all their biggest corest IP's next year. And you'd be crazy to think they haven't been working on those since the previous iterations came out.The Experiment said:
So tell me, if Nintendo doesn't care for the "hardcore" crowd anymore, why do they still spend years developing these "non non-game games?"
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Pureauthor said:
Remember when they tried to squeeze Elders Scrolls onto PSP? Fans of the genre accustomed to KOTOR, Morrowind, Baldurs Gate DA, and Jade Empire would not have followed. The only currently popular console WRPG franchise that could easily transition to the DS is the Xmen Legend/Marvel UA series.
What I'm saying is that even if the lion's share of FPS was on DS, the handful that remained on HD consoles would still be where players flocked, and would be reviewed better by the Western media even if they were mediocre efforts.
There's a fundamental divide in how console and handheld games are viewed in the east and west. If the original Gears of War, for example, were a DS or PSP game, the sentiment would be that it was a good shooter...for a handheld, and everyone would go back to playing Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, or Halo 2.
The PSP is a great example of what I'm talking about. It flew out of the gate with tons of 3rd party support, and soon as people realized that nearly the entire library could be played on existing consoles (and better) in one form or another, it became utterly redundant to everyone but the pirate community.
Now, if we're talking about the Wii, the situation still stands. The standards for "core" gamers in several genres was established before the Wii ever hit store shelves. Fighting games (DOA4, FNR3), shooters (PDZ,CoD2,COD3, GRAW,GoW), racers (PGR3, Burnout Revenge), open world games (Saints Row, Just Cause?), and WRPGs (Oblivion)already had an established baseline of what was acceptable at minimum for developers AND gamers in those genres before December of 2006.
Developers could have thrown dozens of FPS at the Wii, and they wouldve been mocked mercilessly by the mainstream gaming press simply for 'limiting' themselves to Nintendo's console, because of games they had already seen, and by gamers already accustomed to LIVE or anticipating the launch of PSN. Look at some of the comments in the Metroid Prime 3 reviews, and that was within the first year of the console.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
AniHawk said:
And Treasure has never made a direct sequel to a game before. Yeah, Nintendo has really abandoned their fanbase. -_-
obijkenobi
Member
PSGames said:
Who cares if its a good IP as long as the game is good? If Nintendo wants to make Super Mario Galaxy 2, I'm happy with that as long as its as good as the first one.
I would agree that a sequel or two with similar gameplay is not an issue. And after that, new gameplay is far more important than a new IP.obijkenobi said:
A lot of people complain games like Metroid Prime 1 for not being of a new IP. That's silly. The game is totally different from any previous game Nintendo has made. There is a vast difference between a game such as Metroid Prime and a game such as Mario Galaxy 2. One is a complete re-invention of a franchise, changed to such an extent that if a few minor elements were changed it could be launched as a new IP. The other, is basically more of the same.
He does have a point that Nintendo has been pretty conservative with their 'hardcore' franchises. Despite incredible quality, most play upon a pre-established formula. This is in stark contrast to last generation, where Metroid Prime, Luigi's Mansion and Pikmen were examples of games that varied their gameplay more from the old roots.
Still, I think he unfairly ignores a lot of the games Nintendo's made this generation.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Vilix said:
Is this sarcasm? I cannot tell if this is sarcasm.
PSGames said:
Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents is hardly casual.
Also, that Monado: Beginning of the World from Monolith Soft. Or Disaster: Day of Crisis.
Slavik81 said:
Mario Galaxy was certainly not a pre-established formula. MP3 was totally different in regards to its controls from the other two. SSBB was the same because everybody wanted it the same.
Probably within the next two years we'll have SMG2 which is great because I want more of that game, Metroid: Other M, which is a totally new sort of gameplay and a new Zelda that will be vastly different if not totally in basic gameplay, but in the story and setting.
I'm sure others will tell you about a couple of things you might have overlooked, but sure, yes it would be good if they did that. That doesn't do much to counter my point, though, that they don't not care. If they didn't care, why would they bother making the games at all, old IP or new? It's a huge investment and you know they're going to push the product (well, okay... 70% certain). It's a big deal to them.PSGames said:
I can sort of understand when people complain they're not that satisfied with the results, but to say Nintendo doesn't even care seems ridiculous to me.
jrricky said:
I've been a huge fan of Nintendo since the Super NES. Pre ordered a Gamecube, convinced most of my friends to buy it. During the Gamecube generation Nintendo pretty much lost me, despite having a few great games.
Super Mario Galaxy was a great platformer, but it doesn't justify 300 bucks Canadian to me. One singleplayer only game wouldn't justify any console purchase to me.
Just look at Nintendo's N64 lineup compared to their Wii lineup. I'm hoping for the best with the new Zelda, but Twilight Princess was hyped as better than Ocarina of Time and the definitive Zelda, and while it was great, it certainly isn't going to keep me a loyal Nintendo fan for decades to come.
The Experiment said:
Easy there, pal. Not everyone who used to play back in the NES days has been pleased with the recent evolution of games. If Nintendo's hardware sales have been decreasing ever since the NES, it's precisely because they gradually lost all those people who liked the NES. Some of them went to the competition, and the rest just stopped playing games (on home systems, that is).
Of all the Nintendo systems that came out after the NES, the Wii is the closest you can get to the NES. I'd argue that Nintendo has done a decent, if not fine job of recapturing all those people who had become increasingly bored by games. I am one of them, actually. You would be correct if you said that they failed to embrace those who've enjoyed gaming for 20 years and were quite content with the direction of gaming before the Wii came out.
People seem to forget that the NES forged most of its legacy on audiences that didn't play games before but found something different in the NES. The NES was a family system. Kids loved all those dynamic arcade games (I know because I was a kid
). People in general found Mario and Duck Hunt to be accessible enough. The Wii does it again, and adds all the old games that we all loved back in the day via the Virtual Console.Make no mistake: part of the success of the Wii is precisely due to the people who loved the NES.
Sho_Nuff82 said:
This is precisely the sort of genre that is driven by technology. As you say, little has changed mechnically over the years for JRPGs. So how do they convince people to buy new ones? I'll tell you how EA would do it: gradually increase graphics and feature sets. That's how Madden does it, for example.
"Charade." Please.
Did the JRPG market suddenly die on the DS when ToV was released? Here is when the "charade" would be over: when the 360 amassed a large variety of excellent JRPGs that the DS doesn't have.
Absolutely agree. It's too late to do this: we were discussing what they could have done, not what they can now do.
EA have made their horrible, losing-1-billion-dollars-a-year bed, and now they have to lie in it.
Agreed, it's too late.
It's important to recognize that SE would not be able to do this if DQ9 were announced recently and was the start of the JRPG wave for the DS right now. In other words, it was essential that the DS catch the JRPG crowd early, which it did.
Absolutely. Could they have done so if the game were released in the first year of the DS' life? I'm not sure. But clearly, the opinions of the system had already been formed when Chinatown Wars came out 4 years in to the system's lifespan.
Pureauthor said:
This is well put.
There was a time, not too long ago, when "graphics whores" were looked down upon. That's why we called them "graphics whores," a clearly pejorative term.
Look at the video where Iwata first begins discussing the Revolution system (does someone have that video? It would be really great). When he says, "I could tell you our technical specs, but I won't, because they don't really matter," there was huge applause from the Press in attendance.
It should be pretty clear that at some point in the not too distant past, it was generally agreed that games were not driven by graphics/presentation. However, many have become convinced that they are driven by graphics/presentation now, because so many great developers have spent billions convincing them that they are important. Not just Irrational and Bethesda and their ilk, but the huge investments from EA, Take 2, Ubisoft and others.
I'd assert that the people who now feel driven by graphics/presentation could also have been convinced of the value of portability, or touch controls, or motion controls, or what have you, if an equal amount of money and developer focus had been spent on those. Not only could developers have shaped "hardcore" tastes -- as they always do -- but they could have done so in a way that was vastly more secure and profitable for all involved.
But they didn't do that, and now it's too late.
Actually, the big difference is the Wii Sports and Wii Fit are good.The Experiment said:
Are you pulling this out of your ass? Nintendo's core games sell better this generation than they ever have. They are also putting out as many of them as they always have.The Experiment said:
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I'll just throw in my 2 cents for this.
In short Nintendo seems to have completely dropped the ball in truly capitalizing on their new success. If you look how they Playstation brand became so dominant it was because it started off on capitalizing on a new found broad market (the young adult market) than immediately branching out to to others (the teen, the children's, the hardcore, etc.). By the time its successor was released it practically dominated every market, so much so it left the other two platforms more or less being seen as merely "the alternative" platforms more so than the competitors in the mainstream consumer market as well as the development field.
Nintendo has failed in this aspect. With the DS and Wii, outside of 3 exceptions (though I must say they are pretty major exceptions) they haven't tried swaying the traditional market segment at all. Now people can argue all they want that it's the third parties fault for not capitalizing on the Wii, but now that's just ridiculous. It's NINTENDO'S job to convince third parties to develop on their platforms and noone else's. Did you see Microsoft blow over Japanese publishers when they ignored the very large Western market that the 360 was targeting toward? Did SONY blow over publishers who didn't believe in 3D gaming? The point is that it doesn't matter who's "fault" it is, the only thing that matters is that you get that support on your platform to capitalize on the highest profit margin thus is the basics of business in this industry. Facing an uphill battle is a challenge you have to rise up to not ignore.
Now is it too late? Is it worth it? This totally depends when Nintendo expects the Wii's successor to launch which reasonably could be anywhere from 2 to 6 years. If it's the former than it would best to start striking deals now or in the near future with traditional publishers, if it's 6 years than better late than never.
Brilliant Post.
In short Nintendo seems to have completely dropped the ball in truly capitalizing on their new success. If you look how they Playstation brand became so dominant it was because it started off on capitalizing on a new found broad market (the young adult market) than immediately branching out to to others (the teen, the children's, the hardcore, etc.). By the time its successor was released it practically dominated every market, so much so it left the other two platforms more or less being seen as merely "the alternative" platforms more so than the competitors in the mainstream consumer market as well as the development field.
Nintendo has failed in this aspect. With the DS and Wii, outside of 3 exceptions (though I must say they are pretty major exceptions) they haven't tried swaying the traditional market segment at all. Now people can argue all they want that it's the third parties fault for not capitalizing on the Wii, but now that's just ridiculous. It's NINTENDO'S job to convince third parties to develop on their platforms and noone else's. Did you see Microsoft blow over Japanese publishers when they ignored the very large Western market that the 360 was targeting toward? Did SONY blow over publishers who didn't believe in 3D gaming? The point is that it doesn't matter who's "fault" it is, the only thing that matters is that you get that support on your platform to capitalize on the highest profit margin thus is the basics of business in this industry. Facing an uphill battle is a challenge you have to rise up to not ignore.
Now is it too late? Is it worth it? This totally depends when Nintendo expects the Wii's successor to launch which reasonably could be anywhere from 2 to 6 years. If it's the former than it would best to start striking deals now or in the near future with traditional publishers, if it's 6 years than better late than never.
Opiate said:
Brilliant Post.
Eteric Rice
Member
Opiate said:
Well, to be fair, gamers have been conditioned from the very beginning to look towards graphics as the measuring stick for weather they should be interested in a game or not. Here are some examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0KTjpaG3cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDza6eTXGEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByO_NTpdCes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZqrObsfYg
I could go on.
We've been conditioned this way since the 80s. It didn't just start this generation.
Eteric Rice said:
Absolutely agreed, and it should be apparent at this point that this conditioning can be undone. It just takes concerted effort. Example: Japan. Another example: the increasing interest in handheld gaming in the West (the DS is clearly going to be far more succesful than the GBA in the West, and that's before you add in the PSP's 30 million Western users). A third example: the success of the iPod Touch/iPhone.
From the "hardcore" side of things, consider competitive gaming. What are the top earners playing? Counter Strike and StarCraft, which are both over 10 years old. That's before you discuss Chess, which is also competitive gaming, and is closer to 4,000 years old.
So there are a bunch of angles at which publishers could have approached this: they could have focused on skill/competitive style gaming, like Counter Strike and Starcraft, a realm which clearly doesn't place graphics at a premium. They could have focused on touch interfaces. They could have focused on Wii-like motion control. They could have focused on local co-op.
They could have steered our "conditioning" in a million different directions, almost all which would have been cheaper for everyone involved.
Psychotext
Member
God... I remember that advert. :lolEteric Rice said:
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Opiate said:
I absolutely agree that the lack of focus of multiplayer and portable gaming in the West is shocking though understandable.
If you look at the charts and changing gaming habits multiplayer gaming is really starting to overcome single player. However most developers are just too stubborn to accept this (IMO it is THIS that is the biggest threat to traditional games, not casual games). As for portability outside of the huge growth in handhelds look at the growth of other industry's: cellphones, MP3 players, laptops, netbooks,etc. Having a phone line in your house is starting to become non-existant, lapting aops are quickly overtaking desktops with netbooks (an even more portable solution) quickly growing as well, and MP3 players need no explanation. Looking at the high DSi sales I think it comes to no question that gaming will follow the music and computing industries.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I typed this out this morning when I first read your response, but it didn't post as GAF logged me out. Hopefully I'm as clear now as I was then.
Madden and FIFA have progressed in areas beyond that of graphics and presentation since their first iterations, the most obvious of which are AI, tackling physics, ball physics, and online integration. Tecmo Bowl was once considered the pinnacle of the genre - the same game, with modern graphics, would not find a significant audience.
If that came off as condescending to the DS, it was not my intention.
But really, what is the difference between Tales on 360, vs Tales on Wii, vs Tales on GCN, vs Tales on PSP, vs Tales on DS? Other than graphics and presentation?
Games like Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Star Ocean 4, and Eternal Sonata, are prettier versions of games we've been playing for years. I know this is often used as a blanket criticism of all things involved in HD gaming, but it is never more true as it is with this genre.
Contrast this with GTA IV vs GTA CW vs GTA LCS. Or Assassin's Creed vs Assassin's Creed DS vs Assassin's Creed PSP. Or Splinter Cell vs Splinter Cell DS vs Splinter Cell PSP.
You couldn't scale Far Cry 2 to the PSP without absolutely breaking what makes the game what it is. The Orange Box would not still be a AAA game on the DS. You could not have, in the generational transition, simply changed the art style of Halo 2, slapped it on a handheld, and expected the audience to follow over to Halo 3 a la Valkryie Chronicles.
If Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Bioshock, Rainbow Six, GRAW, and Half Life 2 were all DS exclusive, Halo 3 by itself would dwarf the userbase of all of those titles combined, on 360 alone, because all shooter fans would want to play the biggest, best, most fully featured shooter. FF XIII can't do this for the PS3 in Japan.
The idea that GTA Chinatown Wars (and hypothetical announcement of subsequent sequels for DS) released in 2005 (before the announcement of GTAIV) would have drawn a large segment of the audience fresh off of San Andreas is absurd, and it completely dismisses the widely lauded changes made to the series when it transitioned to the PS2.
This is why I think the DS JRPG situation is a faulty example for the entire industry, many genres have grown in ways that it has not.
Opiate said:
Madden and FIFA have progressed in areas beyond that of graphics and presentation since their first iterations, the most obvious of which are AI, tackling physics, ball physics, and online integration. Tecmo Bowl was once considered the pinnacle of the genre - the same game, with modern graphics, would not find a significant audience.
If that came off as condescending to the DS, it was not my intention.
But really, what is the difference between Tales on 360, vs Tales on Wii, vs Tales on GCN, vs Tales on PSP, vs Tales on DS? Other than graphics and presentation?
Games like Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Star Ocean 4, and Eternal Sonata, are prettier versions of games we've been playing for years. I know this is often used as a blanket criticism of all things involved in HD gaming, but it is never more true as it is with this genre.
Contrast this with GTA IV vs GTA CW vs GTA LCS. Or Assassin's Creed vs Assassin's Creed DS vs Assassin's Creed PSP. Or Splinter Cell vs Splinter Cell DS vs Splinter Cell PSP.
You couldn't scale Far Cry 2 to the PSP without absolutely breaking what makes the game what it is. The Orange Box would not still be a AAA game on the DS. You could not have, in the generational transition, simply changed the art style of Halo 2, slapped it on a handheld, and expected the audience to follow over to Halo 3 a la Valkryie Chronicles.
If Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Bioshock, Rainbow Six, GRAW, and Half Life 2 were all DS exclusive, Halo 3 by itself would dwarf the userbase of all of those titles combined, on 360 alone, because all shooter fans would want to play the biggest, best, most fully featured shooter. FF XIII can't do this for the PS3 in Japan.
The idea that GTA Chinatown Wars (and hypothetical announcement of subsequent sequels for DS) released in 2005 (before the announcement of GTAIV) would have drawn a large segment of the audience fresh off of San Andreas is absurd, and it completely dismisses the widely lauded changes made to the series when it transitioned to the PS2.
This is why I think the DS JRPG situation is a faulty example for the entire industry, many genres have grown in ways that it has not.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Go take a look at the steam game stats - http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ and tell me that shooter fans are only interested in the biggest most fully featured graphically impressive game. Even just looking at the relative levels of the counter strikes, it is apparent that even given the choice between two games which are very similar - one with significantly improved graphics and physics - the choice between the two is not a given.Sho_Nuff82 said:
Edit: take a look at the xbox live stats and see how well battlefield 1943 is doing. Take a look at the xbox live stats for the first year of its life and see Halo 2 topping the ranks all the way until they split them (I'm guessing because Halo 2 was always topping the ranks).
Sho_Nuff82
Member
poppabk said:
Completely ignoring that Steam's player counts are miniscule in comparison to LIVE and PSN, can the DS even run any of the top 20 games (other than Monkey Island?) in a way that would draw these players away from their existing multiplayer experiences?
That is the question being asked - could Valve have released an exclusive version of Counterstrike and Day of Defeat on ANY system, and expect the majority of the fanbase to migrate over from what they had already played, and wholeheartedly accept the new system, as Dragon Quest fans have done?
My argument was that if the DS was that system, the answer is no. A resounding no.
The longevity of the original Half Life/Counterstrike and last-gen Halo are commendable, but they couldn't hope to be full priced retail products NOW and compete with current gen games.
Halo 2 was the most fully featured FPS on 360 until Halo 3 was released. The matchmaking and stat progression in Gears, Rainbow Six, and COD3 is a joke in comparison.
Battlefield 1943 has done well in its first week, but it will never reach the sales of BF2: Modern Combat or Bad Company on 360, PS3, or PC, nor could it have expected to find an audience at all if it had released at retail for $60 as the newer games in the series had.
Opiate said:
I see what you are saying, but it certainly did not help that companies who did develop for the Wii early on somehow went backwards in graphics capability. We had Wii games that looked worse than Gamecube (which the Wii is bascially a 2x version of) and PS2 games. Some games even looked worse than the PS2 ports :lol
I think its just sad that we are more than 3 years into the Wii's lifespan and just now are we getting games that look like they have been made on the Wii
Version 3.0
Member
poppabk said:
That's an interesting observation. But I think you're both right, as odd as that sounds. Shooter fans do tend to want the great, cutting-edge graphics, etc--in new games. But they're still willing to play older games that are great. That's not quite the same thing as embracing a new game on weaker hardware.
Just some general points while I wait for charlequin to reply. (Although I imagine that a lot I say here will be relevant to my discussion with him.)
Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion here, but I believe that (perhaps somewhat unlike Blu-ray and DVD) gamers will be made to evaluate consoles on the basis of their motion controls, whether they really want to or not. If the current escalating costs of development haven't already assured that coming generations of consoles didn't offer the same leap in graphics that we have come to known (thus shifting the differentiating features between generations to another quality), Microsoft and Sony's ventures into motion controls have sealed it. Nintendo's paradigm shift has worked: motion controls as the way of the future is an inevitability.
Not that I disagree with the theory of disruption, but can I ask what people mean when they say that Nintendo should have moved upstream? Some people argue that this means that Nintendo should have gone after so-called "core gamers" - which appears to be much of a synonym for the 18-35 male demographic - but I disagree with this. To me, this demographic is still a very casual, downstream audience. I agree that they may be more hardcore than younger or older demographics, but if we were to imagine "hardcoreness" on a one to ten scale, I would suggest that the majority of them are at, say, five. I agree that theoretically, one can be at any place on the scale, but realistically and pragmatically I would argue that this is unlikely. If we try to place the whole videogame market on this scale, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a high population between places one to five, and then an almost sudden shift to people who are at nine or ten. This is not to suggest that there is no "core gamer" market, but that the difference between a "core gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is probably larger than we may have thought.
To summarise, I believe that to move upstream does not mean to target "core gamers". If we use the metaphor of moving upstream almost literally, I would suggest that Nintendo made the move (selling the Wii to most hardcore gamers), but left some pieces of furniture (core gamers - the 18-35 male market) behind.
This is where I disagree heavily.
To borrow a phrase or two from Kantian philosophy, you are providing me with hypothetical imperatives when you require a categorical imperative. In case you are unfamiliar with these terms, an hypothetical imperative takes the form of "if X, then Y". For example: "if you are hungry, go to the fridge", or "if you are tired, go to bed". However, these only apply to certain situations where there is a contingent demand upon a person. You would not say, for example, that someone should go to the fridge if they are not hungry, or that they should go to bed if they are not tired. By contrast, categorical imperatives are timeless, necessary demands that take the form of "do X", or "do not do Y". They make no reference to contingent situations, and are derived from logic alone. Kant would argue that "do not steal" and "do not lie" are categorical imperatives - they are demands and duties that we must and should fill always for duty's sake.
What is the relevancy of this? Because I believe greatly that the statement "Nintendo should go after third-parties" is entirely an hypothetical imperative. It is based entirely around the contingent belief that it is best to sacrifice profits for marketshare. However, you have not proved that this is true. In fact, I would offer a counterpoint to this claim: Sony. They sacrificed profits for marketshare with the PS3, and have landed several billion dollars in the red. To prove to me that Nintendo ought to actively pursue third-parties - that this is a timeless demand that it must fulfill - you would need to prove that it is always the best course of action in all situations, that it is a categorical imperative.
Rather, I suggest we view a company's actions against its motivations and desires. In this manner, we may take a look at Microsoft: clearly their desire is to gain as much marketshare as possible, establishing a foothold in the gaming industry so that they can later conquer it. Clearly, they have been very successful in achieving this goal, successfully disrupting Sony's business plans and conquering a large demographic within the industry. However, in doing so they have lost billions of dollars. And yet, I would never criticise harshly Microsoft for doing so - I would never highlight it as an unintended consequence of their actions. I might point this out as a weakness of their corporate strategy, but to criticise them for it would be to misunderstand their strategy. They knew that they would be losing money, but they intended to do so - they clearly feel that making money is less important than gaining marketshare.
Similarly, when we look at Nintendo's relationships with third-parties, we need to look at it in comparison with their desired strategy. I imagine that Nintendo knows that it hasn't built strong relationships with other developers, and I would argue that they have purposefully chosen not to do so. I agree that IF someone is to build concrete relationships with these developers, then it is the platform manufacturer that should do so. But I would argue that it is not always the case that a manufacturer should develop these relationships in the first place. To criticise Nintendo for doing so would be like going up to Microsoft and shouting "But you've lost billions of dollars!".
Of course, I'm not trying to argue that Nintendo's strategy is correct. It may turn out to be the case that building relationships with third-parties generates more profits than doing otherwise would not. However, to evaluate their strategy in such a way again we need to look at it in regards to that strategy's purpose - we can only evaluate a corporate strategy within the framework of the hypothetical imperative. Again, imagine the hypothetical imperative "if you are hungry, go to the fridge". Now imagine that someone is hungry, and goes to the fridge and eats a sandwich to satisfy their hungry. If they are still hungry after they have done this, then clearly their action was a failure. Let's apply this to Nintendo's strategy, which seems to be something akin to "if you want to make money, don't spend millions of dollars cultivating third-party relationships". We can only evaluate the success of Nintendo's strategy in regards to how much money it makes for them. I will gladly admit that if Nintendo doesn't make as much money as they otherwise might, then their strategy is a failure and they should cultivate third-party relationships. But we don't know this, and so we cannot say they should cultivate third-party relationships.
I understand that this whole monologue may not be entirely relevant to your original post, Flying_Phoenix, but it is something that I feel is relevant to the discussion as a whole.
Opiate said:
Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion here, but I believe that (perhaps somewhat unlike Blu-ray and DVD) gamers will be made to evaluate consoles on the basis of their motion controls, whether they really want to or not. If the current escalating costs of development haven't already assured that coming generations of consoles didn't offer the same leap in graphics that we have come to known (thus shifting the differentiating features between generations to another quality), Microsoft and Sony's ventures into motion controls have sealed it. Nintendo's paradigm shift has worked: motion controls as the way of the future is an inevitability.
Opiate said:
Not that I disagree with the theory of disruption, but can I ask what people mean when they say that Nintendo should have moved upstream? Some people argue that this means that Nintendo should have gone after so-called "core gamers" - which appears to be much of a synonym for the 18-35 male demographic - but I disagree with this. To me, this demographic is still a very casual, downstream audience. I agree that they may be more hardcore than younger or older demographics, but if we were to imagine "hardcoreness" on a one to ten scale, I would suggest that the majority of them are at, say, five. I agree that theoretically, one can be at any place on the scale, but realistically and pragmatically I would argue that this is unlikely. If we try to place the whole videogame market on this scale, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a high population between places one to five, and then an almost sudden shift to people who are at nine or ten. This is not to suggest that there is no "core gamer" market, but that the difference between a "core gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is probably larger than we may have thought.
To summarise, I believe that to move upstream does not mean to target "core gamers". If we use the metaphor of moving upstream almost literally, I would suggest that Nintendo made the move (selling the Wii to most hardcore gamers), but left some pieces of furniture (core gamers - the 18-35 male market) behind.
Flying_Phoenix said:
This is where I disagree heavily.
To borrow a phrase or two from Kantian philosophy, you are providing me with hypothetical imperatives when you require a categorical imperative. In case you are unfamiliar with these terms, an hypothetical imperative takes the form of "if X, then Y". For example: "if you are hungry, go to the fridge", or "if you are tired, go to bed". However, these only apply to certain situations where there is a contingent demand upon a person. You would not say, for example, that someone should go to the fridge if they are not hungry, or that they should go to bed if they are not tired. By contrast, categorical imperatives are timeless, necessary demands that take the form of "do X", or "do not do Y". They make no reference to contingent situations, and are derived from logic alone. Kant would argue that "do not steal" and "do not lie" are categorical imperatives - they are demands and duties that we must and should fill always for duty's sake.
What is the relevancy of this? Because I believe greatly that the statement "Nintendo should go after third-parties" is entirely an hypothetical imperative. It is based entirely around the contingent belief that it is best to sacrifice profits for marketshare. However, you have not proved that this is true. In fact, I would offer a counterpoint to this claim: Sony. They sacrificed profits for marketshare with the PS3, and have landed several billion dollars in the red. To prove to me that Nintendo ought to actively pursue third-parties - that this is a timeless demand that it must fulfill - you would need to prove that it is always the best course of action in all situations, that it is a categorical imperative.
Rather, I suggest we view a company's actions against its motivations and desires. In this manner, we may take a look at Microsoft: clearly their desire is to gain as much marketshare as possible, establishing a foothold in the gaming industry so that they can later conquer it. Clearly, they have been very successful in achieving this goal, successfully disrupting Sony's business plans and conquering a large demographic within the industry. However, in doing so they have lost billions of dollars. And yet, I would never criticise harshly Microsoft for doing so - I would never highlight it as an unintended consequence of their actions. I might point this out as a weakness of their corporate strategy, but to criticise them for it would be to misunderstand their strategy. They knew that they would be losing money, but they intended to do so - they clearly feel that making money is less important than gaining marketshare.
Similarly, when we look at Nintendo's relationships with third-parties, we need to look at it in comparison with their desired strategy. I imagine that Nintendo knows that it hasn't built strong relationships with other developers, and I would argue that they have purposefully chosen not to do so. I agree that IF someone is to build concrete relationships with these developers, then it is the platform manufacturer that should do so. But I would argue that it is not always the case that a manufacturer should develop these relationships in the first place. To criticise Nintendo for doing so would be like going up to Microsoft and shouting "But you've lost billions of dollars!".
Of course, I'm not trying to argue that Nintendo's strategy is correct. It may turn out to be the case that building relationships with third-parties generates more profits than doing otherwise would not. However, to evaluate their strategy in such a way again we need to look at it in regards to that strategy's purpose - we can only evaluate a corporate strategy within the framework of the hypothetical imperative. Again, imagine the hypothetical imperative "if you are hungry, go to the fridge". Now imagine that someone is hungry, and goes to the fridge and eats a sandwich to satisfy their hungry. If they are still hungry after they have done this, then clearly their action was a failure. Let's apply this to Nintendo's strategy, which seems to be something akin to "if you want to make money, don't spend millions of dollars cultivating third-party relationships". We can only evaluate the success of Nintendo's strategy in regards to how much money it makes for them. I will gladly admit that if Nintendo doesn't make as much money as they otherwise might, then their strategy is a failure and they should cultivate third-party relationships. But we don't know this, and so we cannot say they should cultivate third-party relationships.
I understand that this whole monologue may not be entirely relevant to your original post, Flying_Phoenix, but it is something that I feel is relevant to the discussion as a whole.
I'm not a Madden gamer, but most of these updates strike me as bullet-list-on-the-back-of-box sort of upgrades that publishers might try to make a big deal of but most would absolutely never notice unless they were told. Improved physics allows for crunchier crunches!
The exception, and it's an important one, is online integration.
And again, isn't this just reinforcing my point? This should mean, logically, that the JRPGs are particularly reliant on new technology to convince new buyers, because it's the only thing that is improving. If a genre so reliant on graphics/tech can make the shift to handhelds with N64 powered hardware, why can't other genres do the same?
I agree that other changes would have to be made. They'd need to take the millions -- tens of millions -- of dollars saved on the graphics engines for these games, and spend a good portion of it on other concerns, like touch screen innovations and general increased gameplay polish.
If we're just talking straight port jobs, I would agree with you, but that's because you're taking a bunch of games built on the values of technology and presentation, and switching them to a system that is weak in that area. Instead, what I'm suggesting is that these games should have been built around the DS' strengths in the first place: controls and portability.
Do you want an example? Something like Counter Strike.
What's your evidence for this? I have given evidence that this isn't true. I'll add more: it seems quite clear that PC shooter fans, myself included, are not particularly concerned with the things you just mentioned, as 10 year old games are still topping the charts of most played online games.
Pretty clearly, you can create an army of shooter fans who care about other things than "biggest" gameplay, which I assume is a euphamism for "epic graphics."
They just didn't.
Here's the problem, Sho_Nuff. You apparently believe that the shooter fans are inherently graphics/tech whores, who want to play the "biggest" games, as you put it. I assert that you are wrong, and that shooter fans have come to prefer this because that's what they've been fed on consoles. However, the Japanese DS situation and, more direct to this example, the PC shooter situation, show that tastes can be shaped in different ways. Japanese RPG gamers didn't seem to care about portability 10 years ago, but they sure seem to now.
The ascension of the graphics/tech whore was not inevitable -- it was cultivated by Publishers who spent billions creating this environment. I can even explain why they did it: because it's extremely reliable. Emphasizing technology as a main selling point decreases risk because technology increases at a predictable and stable pace. If my games sell based on their technology, then it stands to reason that I can continue to sell games as they, too, improve at a predictable, stable pace. Things like control interfaces are much more difficult to harness, as there is no obvious, linear path upward. Furthermore, increasing technology increases costs, which is actually something companies like EA like to a degree, because it makes cost of entry prohibitively expensive for smaller competitors.
Therefore, I completely understand why publishers chose to continue down the gradually-improve-with-technology model, but now that it's blown up in their faces we can consider what other options they might have had.
*several essays later*
Some of you seem to talk more about games than you will ever play them. You are so worried about the what's going to happen years from now almost like a person who is so afraid of the inevitability of dying that they decide to spend their healthy life in a hospital.
The vast majority of games are still games catered to traditional gamers and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Some of you seem to talk more about games than you will ever play them. You are so worried about the what's going to happen years from now almost like a person who is so afraid of the inevitability of dying that they decide to spend their healthy life in a hospital.
The vast majority of games are still games catered to traditional gamers and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Shaheed79 said:
I will gladly admit that discussing the gaming industry interests me more than playing games. I'm not sure why, but I think I have a genuine desire for knowledge and understanding, which I believe I gain through discussion.
But the definition of "traditional gamer" probably will.
Basileus777
Member
Opiate said:
That's quite an assumption you are making. And I don't see what you are basing it on. Outside of some Square-Enix titles, JRPGs have rarely been big budget AAA titles known for pushing technology. Most JRPGs are lower-budget titles that don't look as good as games in other genres on the same platform. Just because the gameplay hasn't changed dramatically in the genre, it doesn't automatically mean that it is new technology that drives buyers to pick up new titles. Perhaps other genres could move to the DS as JRPGs have, but I think there is something to be said for the idea that it was easier to a genre such as JRPGs that don't rely on technology to make the transition.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Shaheed79 said:
and yet you clicked on the sales thread