Big mistake IMO, has anyone mentioned that this completely feels like Dreamcast? I think both Sony and MS are going to completely ignore it seeing as it's so early and we're in the middle of a recession.
I guess it's an obvious choice, really. If Nintendo were to make a badass console with specs similar to a current high-end gaming PC, who would develop for it? No developer would spend their budget to target that system. They'd rather spend less to target the 360 and PS3, especially after seeing how poorly third-party titles sold on the Wii.
Your logic doesn't track there. You're saying if the next console from Nintendo is very powerful, devs will choose to not work on it? (Don't get me started with what's wrong with that statement.) But of course...you do realize the games don't have to take advantage of all the horsepower the console will have to offer. Multiplatform games will probably look the same across the board of the three. How can being too powerful possibly hurt Nintendo if they won't sell at a loss?
I singled that part out, but at the start of your post, you bash Nintendo for riding their company on a fad, implying they should have gone with a graphics powerhouse this gen.
So to recap, in your mind:
If Nintendo releases an epicly powerful console = fail.
If Nintendo releases another underpowered console with gimmick = fail.
What did you expect? Nintendo decided to target the Wii squarely at people who didn't ordinarily play video games. The Wii fad caught on and made Nintendo a ton of money, but it's a lousy thing to try and base your long-term revenues on. It's no surprise that the Wii is seeing a big drop-off in sales. Fads don't last forever.
I guess it's an obvious choice, really. If Nintendo were to make a badass console with specs similar to a current high-end gaming PC, who would develop for it? No developer would spend their budget to target that system. They'd rather spend less to target the 360 and PS3, especially after seeing how poorly third-party titles sold on the Wii.
The drop in revenues for Nintendo is being blown out of proportion I think, and I mean it's really what you'd expect at this point in time. It's not a matter of "Uh oh, they're selling fewer systems" but rather "Of course they're selling fewer systems." They simply aren't seeing the same sales pace as they did a few years ago, but you can't possibly be surprised by that as their market saturates and interest fades in products the public expects to EOL (Quarterly figures for the 360 and PS3 aren't as easy to find as the Wii but dollars to donuts they aren't selling as many consoles as they did 2-3 years ago either).
Assuming the rumors are true, that they're going for a traditional controller with an embedded screen as the gimmick, does anyone think this is enough to set the world on fire again? It just doesn't seem like enough to me.
No it wasn't what they expected at this point in time. The whole reason it was big news was because their profits fell short of analysts' estimates. So it obviously DID surprise a lot of people, because their profits dropped off even faster than they were expecting.
I dunno, I looked at a few reports from 2009 and 2010 and the majority of them were "Nintendo fails to meet such and such estimates" or "Profits fall". I still think Nintendo is in a great position, it's just that between price-cuts and dependence on big first party titles, it's difficult to maintain the kind of momentum they had with the Wii in 2008. Ironically that still sounds quite negative in spite of the fact they had a great 2009 and a good 2010 still, you just can't expect banner years every year, and the Wii has gotten such good press that I think people still expect it to fly off shelves. It sells certainly, and still quite well, but it's no longer flying.
If he's talking about controllers, storage, and anything else on the periphery that can be added on that doesn't actually determine what games can be made for the system than he's missed the entire context of the conversation up until this point.
If he really believes what he said on an internal hardware level, than he's just wrong.
In either case, there's no truly definitive definition of generation beyond what someone wants to arbitrarily label it. Yet there is a general one when speaking of general console power that most normal people can understand. Im trying to work within that basic common sense without trying to score points in some stupid semantic argument.
Anyways.
Nintendo just made it official for 2012. No news other than that it now officially exists.
No you aren't. You are limiting the definition of a new generation to one thing, graphics. The real difference between generations are significant changes in hardware and capabilities. That could be graphics. It could also be new control paradigms, online capabilities, additional functionality, like blu-ray.
The Wii differs from the Gamecube majorly in terms of controls and sensors, online gameplay, wifi, sd card storage, downloadable games and dlc, web browsing.
Lots of those things do significantly change what kind of games can be made, if that's your standard.
Until the Kinect and Move, what changes in games other than updated graphics, have actually materialized for the ps3 or 360 ?
No you aren't. You are limiting the definition of a new generation to one thing, graphics. The real difference between generations are significant changes in hardware and capabilities. That could be graphics. It could also be new control paradigms, online capabilities, additional functionality, like blu-ray.
The Wii differs from the Gamecube majorly in terms of controls and sensors, online gameplay, wifi, sd card storage, downloadable games and dlc, web browsing.
Lots of those things do significantly change what kind of games can be made, if that's your standard.
Until the Kinect and Move, what changes in games other than updated graphics, have actually materialized for the ps3 or 360 ?
I was talking about graphics and basic computing power, which was the context of the discussion at the time. I wasnt trying to force a definition of a term, just using the word generation in that context as a shorthand. You clearly missed the point the first time, and youre still taking shots over the definition of a word, and still completely missing the point. Yes, we all understand there's more to games than graphics, and generation can mean lots of things in a number of contexts. Its still besides the point. Give it a rest.
I just wanted to single this part out and say, "yes, please." I don't know who decided consoles should have "10 year life cycles" but they're wrong. The PS2 was supposed to have that long of a cycle, but the PS3 came out six years after the PS2. Yeah, they still made PS2 games, but for all intents and purposes the PS2 was "dead." The PS4 and new Xbox should release next year, not 20-goddamn-14.
While the 360 and PS3 took losses, the companies have other means to make up for it, which Nintendo doesn't. They just have the gaming machines. Luckily, some people will buy anything with Nintendo on it.MS and sony both took such a loss upfront on the ps3 and xbox360 that they may need that long a period to recoup (including interest).
frankly i'm surprised the wii has gone this long without a major upgrade. figured N's strategery would have been upgrade more often but keep it profitable.
I dunno, I looked at a few reports from 2009 and 2010 and the majority of them were "Nintendo fails to meet such and such estimates" or "Profits fall". I still think Nintendo is in a great position, it's just that between price-cuts and dependence on big first party titles, it's difficult to maintain the kind of momentum they had with the Wii in 2008. Ironically that still sounds quite negative in spite of the fact they had a great 2009 and a good 2010 still, you just can't expect banner years every year, and the Wii has gotten such good press that I think people still expect it to fly off shelves. It sells certainly, and still quite well, but it's no longer flying.
While the 360 and PS3 took losses, the companies have other means to make up for it, which Nintendo doesn't. They just have the gaming machines. Luckily, some people will buy anything with Nintendo on it.
I know what you mean. I haven't been wanting a Nintendo system for a long time.Theyve got a ton of cash, and that was their traditional model up until the Wii. Its not like they couldnt do it if they wanted to. Frankly, when the competition is willing to take that risk and theyre not, they risk falling behind after a few years. Tech and graphics isnt everything, but it does make a difference. They had such a great start with the Wii that on balance theyve done just fine with it, but if the controller hadnt really caught on with the masses, their strategy would completely have backfired. Their risk paid off, and theyre a company that takes a lot of risks that often pay off. Worst case scenario they could end up as a sega that just makes games, and seeing how shit their hardware has been of late, I wouldnt entirely be opposed to that.
Failing to meet analysts' estimates is THE very definition of doing worse than expected. I don't understand why you keep trying to spin it to make it mean something else.