Am I the only one burned out on gaming?

[TheFeniX]

Define "serious gamer." Is it fair to say Smash Bros. isn't a serious fighting game? Fair to say Mario isn't a serious platformer? What is the criteria?

They tried tapping into the dudebro audience with Conduit. Were some decent games and no one bought them. All the dudebros bought 360s. All the guys who wanted to watch 9 hour movies bought PS3s. Dudebros seem to have picked up the PS4. Either way, the Wii does have a selection of non-casual games, many of them first party such as Smash Bros., LoZ, Mario Galaxy.

The problem is really how Sony and Microsoft, and news outlets, pushed that anything lacking iron sights or marines (space variety count as well) as casual and not worth the time as real gamers. Some of this is Nintendos fault pushing the E for Everyone shtick, but there's still skill required in many of their games. But being able to verbally harass other players in a matchmaking shooter game means to much to them to bother with Nintendo.

But, once again: graphics. Ninty relying on less realistic (and less horsepower draining) stylized looks gives the games a cartoony/kid look. "Mature games for a mature gamer such as myself" kids don't like that shit. Meanwhile, the rest of the console community is fighting over which can render the highest quality bullshots. I would say Nintendo fans matter less because they aren't online shitposting all the time.

[Elheru Aran]

That's a fair point, that they're basically shooting for a different crowd, one that doesn't care as much about graphics and plot as they do just a fun game. It sounds like the game market doesn't have much room for crossover stuff, say low graphic shooters or high rez party games. I can't really imagine something like Splattoon on the PS4, for example.

[Mr Bean]

Define "serious gamer." Is it fair to say Smash Bros. isn't a serious fighting game? Fair to say Mario isn't a serious platformer? What is the criteria?

.

Defines serious gamer? Easy a game which you can play against other people across the country. Even today Nintendo's system is so region and age locked so little Suzy can play with her friends without hearing a twelve year old in Texas calling her a kike loving cum bucket. Smash Brother is a great game and a good one to play against friends but if you compare the online offers of Nintendo VS anyone else you see a box meant for couch play and that's it.

Nintendo's problem has always been it's attitude, twenty years five years later and Nintendo still acts like it's top dog and publishers should come begging to them to be allowed to put their game on Nintendo's console. Per Console Wars a great book about the subject some of Nintendo's contract language was still as restrictive and lopsided when the Xbox 360 was launching as when it was the Nintendo VS pretty much nothing. Nintendo remains with a stick up their ass about if a small time developer wants to put a game on their system. Everything from acquiring a Devkit to getting licensing from Nintendo remains almost as hard today as it was in the early 1990s when it was Nintendo or nothing.

The only things saving Nintendo are their frugality, the exceptional quality of their interior studios and their long running habit of putting money away which now results in a billion plus rainy day fund.

Oh and the handhelds in which Nintendo rules the whole damn world and every person in Japan owns four. (Seriously not serious, but close)

[TheFeniX]

That's a fair point, that they're basically shooting for a different crowd, one that doesn't care as much about graphics and plot as they do just a fun game. It sounds like the game market doesn't have much room for crossover stuff, say low graphic shooters or high rez party games. I can't really imagine something like Splattoon on the PS4, for example.

Nintendo, at least with the Wii, seemed primarily concerned with selling a box that made them money in the short-term. After that, any first-party titles sold were just extra money. I can only imagine the amount of Wiis bought that only played Wii Sports.

But there is room for high-poly (or at least, higher) party games. Scene It, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, and other games of this nature do push a few units. In fact, you'd think there'd be some kind of push for these types of couch-party games, but instead we're pushing to..... guys wearing VR headsets while their wives just look at them weird. At least it frees up the TV for something else.

Defines serious gamer? Easy a game which you can play against other people across the country. Even today Nintendo's system is so region and age locked so little Suzy can play with her friends without hearing a twelve year old in Texas calling her a kike loving cum bucket. Smash Brother is a great game and a good one to play against friends but if you compare the online offers of Nintendo VS anyone else you see a box meant for couch play and that's it.

I don't know if you're saying single-player games can't count as serious games or just mocking the emphasis of online play. I personally am so burned out on matchmaking. I hate the concept outside of certain VS modes and definitely the lack of control over who I play with and against. I am so glad that since ditching XBLive and going back to PC I am no longer constantly bombarded by voice chat and messages that all seem to contain some variation of a slur for homosexuals.

That Nintendo offers a counter-point to PSN and XBLive shenanigans is actually refreshing to me. And I'm sure to a lot of parents who don't have to worry about their kids being bombarded with bullshit. I didn't even have it as rough as a kid since most online games were hosted or done via proxy.

I agree with the rest of your post. But I also find that Microsoft was buying into their own bullshit as well with the Xbone. They thought their shit didn't stink and the success of the 360 would transfer over to their new system. They were wrong and unfortunately the PC seems to be bearing the brunt of their temper-tantrum.

[Mr Bean]

That Nintendo offers a counter-point to PSN and XBLive shenanigans is actually refreshing to me. And I'm sure to a lot of parents who don't have to worry about their kids being bombarded with bullshit. I didn't even have it as rough as a kid since most online games were hosted or done via proxy.

The fact that Nintendo has never taken their restrictive system and never tiered it, IE hey parents if you don't want Suzy to get sworn at with racial epithets choice the Nintendo paring system with the 15 digit codes, small friends list and ability to easily restrict time, date and games.

Or if your an adult here's our Thunderdome setting where everything goes! Or mix and match in lets say four profiles going from Club Penguin right up to Day-Z.

After all it should be harder to build the tight restricted system than the Xbone open free for all method right?

[TheFeniX]

I won't argue with you about Nintendo not really understanding or caring about an established multiplayer system. They do seem to be resting on their laurels and are content to just refine or add a few new mechanics on top of their tried systems, such as New Super Mario Bros. And while there's a lot of casual type games on their systems, is it fair to call someone who games on that system, forgoing online MP, as a casual (or not serious) gamer? The problem is their more serious games are mostly first party and part of the Triforce of Nintendo: Mario, Zelda, and (now dead) Metroid. Prime 2 kicked my teeth in even before the Boost Guardian fight. It was not an easy game by any stretch, though yes: controller smashingly difficult games, a Nintendo staple, are dwindling.

I only bought a Wii because of Zelda and Metroid Prime 3, so I'm probably not the best authority on how terrible its Internet stuff is. I do know it felt like I was back on Windows 98 Internet. Everything just.... stalled a lot. Like you were using Real Player.

Later in my life, I only bother playing Magic with 5 other people I know. I take when I play very seriously: I play to win. Same with poker, even when 5 bucks is on the line. The only thing you can really ask is that people don't go all-in every hand. Other than that, serious is pretty subjective.

My beef with a lot of "mobile" games is that taking them seriously is next to impossible. They are designed specifically to be picked up in short sprints and put down. The skill ceiling is more a sub-floor. This was admitted directly by the creator of the garbage Dungeon Keeper mobile game. Can you really master a game like Angry Birds? Jetpack Joyride? But, you hit a point where you're arguing taste. If the game has enough depth or offers some form of decent gameplay, I find you have to give it some credit.

I don't agree that a functioning online system is a requirement for a game/system to be taken seriously. Or really that there's any point, outside of specific circumstances, where it's worth bothering to argue the definition.

[ray245]

I won't argue with you about Nintendo not really understanding or caring about an established multiplayer system. They do seem to be resting on their laurels and are content to just refine or add a few new mechanics on top of their tried systems, such as New Super Mario Bros. And while there's a lot of casual type games on their systems, is it fair to call someone who games on that system, forgoing online MP, as a casual (or not serious) gamer? The problem is their more serious games are mostly first party and part of the Triforce of Nintendo: Mario, Zelda, and (now dead) Metroid. Prime 2 kicked my teeth in even before the Boost Guardian fight. It was not an easy game by any stretch, though yes: controller smashingly difficult games, a Nintendo staple, are dwindling.

I only bought a Wii because of Zelda and Metroid Prime 3, so I'm probably not the best authority on how terrible its Internet stuff is. I do know it felt like I was back on Windows 98 Internet. Everything just.... stalled a lot. Like you were using Real Player.

Ninento only have themselves to blame by allowing their franchise to stall with no new intellectual property being created. While Sony and Microsoft have many new IP to attract new users to their system, Nintendo is relying on the same old IP. The last major IP they had on their hands was Pokemon, and they proceeded to remake the game with very little changes.

The fact that the newer Pokemon games got outsold by CoD is something they have to blame themselves for.

[Gandalf]

It depends on how you define "serious gamer." I saw some hardcore Wii Bowling tournaments back in the day, but it never really went beyond that one specific bit of a game.

[TheFeniX]

Ninento only have themselves to blame by allowing their franchise to stall with no new intellectual property being created. While Sony and Microsoft have many new IP to attract new users to their system, Nintendo is relying on the same old IP. The last major IP they had on their hands was Pokemon, and they proceeded to remake the game with very little changes.

True. But the Nintendo business model works differently than MS or Sony. Both lost big for years to get their saturation they needed. Nintendo has continued to make either some money or all the money year after year. Witout new IPs coming to Xbox or Playstation: they'd have been DOA. MS and Sony are much more beholden to third-party developers than Nintendo has ever been.

As long as they continue to just make money doing what they're doing, they're unlikely to stop. Which sucks.

The fact that the newer Pokemon games got outsold by CoD is something they have to blame themselves for.

Though quality might be an issue with newer pokemon games, it seems that Japan has been big into later CoDs. No idea why, don't care to know. But that may have something to do with it as well as the broshooter didn't used to get traction in Japan from what I know. It could be that the PS4 library is just so inundated with games of this type, they have no choice or have finally given them an honest shot.

It depends on how you define "serious gamer." I saw some hardcore Wii Bowling tournaments back in the day, but it never really went beyond that one specific bit of a game.

I've just been through this argument so many times in the past, even in genres where you would think every game is "serious." Battlefield vs CoD. Unreal vs Quake vs Counter-Strike. Starcraft/Warcraft vs Command and Conquer. Those RTSs vs Civilization.

It's the Chevy vs Ford "nerd shit" analog.

[ray245]

Ninento only have themselves to blame by allowing their franchise to stall with no new intellectual property being created. While Sony and Microsoft have many new IP to attract new users to their system, Nintendo is relying on the same old IP. The last major IP they had on their hands was Pokemon, and they proceeded to remake the game with very little changes.

True. But the Nintendo business model works differently than MS or Sony. Both lost big for years to get their saturation they needed. Nintendo has continued to make either some money or all the money year after year. Witout new IPs coming to Xbox or Playstation: they'd have been DOA. MS and Sony are much more beholden to third-party developers than Nintendo has ever been.

As long as they continue to just make money doing what they're doing, they're unlikely to stop. Which sucks.

Yeah, but overall their market reach has been declining. The Wii U have a very poor game library with no major AAA titles you could play on. It feels like Nintendo is slowly going on the path that caused SEGA to decline. They need new IP on their platform that is actually popular outside of Japan.

Though quality might be an issue with newer pokemon games, it seems that Japan has been big into later CoDs. No idea why, don't care to know. But that may have something to do with it as well as the broshooter didn't used to get traction in Japan from what I know. It could be that the PS4 library is just so inundated with games of this type, they have no choice or have finally given them an honest shot.

Japan's gaming market is a little different from rest of the world in some ways. MMO and RTS are soem other genres that did not take off in Japan. A lot of Japanese media companies tend to focus on their domestic market as opposed to the global market, and Nintendo certainly seems to be doing so in many ways.

Things like focusing on graphics would have helped their company in some ways, if they wished their IP to grow as time went on. Final Fantasy started as a 2D sprite game similar to Pokemon, but they made the transition to 3d pretty nicely.

[General Zod]

Final Fantasy was never a Nintendo IP to start with.

[Zixinus]

The term "serious gamer" or even "hardcore gamer" is incredibly arbitary and frankly, an attempt at gaming elitism. There are a wide variety of gaming audiences (not just "hardcore" and "casual", that's just a self-misleading fallacy) as computers have become involved in everyone's life.

[TheFeniX]

Yeah, but overall their market reach has been declining. The Wii U have a very poor game library with no major AAA titles you could play on. It feels like Nintendo is slowly going on the path that caused SEGA to decline. They need new IP on their platform that is actually popular outside of Japan.

The sales figures don't really seem to agree and I have to ask: isn't the emphasis on AAA shovelware and beating franchises to death part of the problem with the shit state of gaming?

Japan's gaming market is a little different from rest of the world in some ways. MMO and RTS are soem other genres that did not take off in Japan. A lot of Japanese media companies tend to focus on their domestic market as opposed to the global market, and Nintendo certainly seems to be doing so in many ways.

No argument here.

Things like focusing on graphics would have helped their company in some ways, if they wished their IP to grow as time went on. Final Fantasy started as a 2D sprite game similar to Pokemon, but they made the transition to 3d pretty nicely.

Then wouldn't they just be in the same boat as MS and Sony: selling cut-down PCs at a loss and praying third-party developers deliver? Ninty has way too much power in the first-party and "we own you" third-party development (such as Rare and Retro just for two historically) to bother with that. Zelda and Mario push units everywhere. Metroid seems to have eaten the dust (and Nintendo also be willing to take stupidly HUGE risks with the IP) because it's essentially a western title and has only achieved popularity outside of Japan. Unlike Final Fantasy which wasn't "popular" in the west until FFVII.

Final Fantasy was never a Nintendo IP to start with.

Honestly, may has well have been early on. From what I know, the Genesis couldn't handle FFIV hardware wise, but also that the Genesis was only truly popular in the west as it was targeted to the "to cool for you" group as a more "super-rad" console. Nintendo's insistence on cartridges for the N64, which are rough for FMV (among some other things such as audio encoding) drove Square into Sony's hands. Also of note, it wasn't until FFVII that FF actually became a force in the west. Japan/Square figured FF2 and 3 were too difficult for American audiences because they've always kind of had a stick up their asses about non-Japanese gamers. Hell, there's a reason for FFIV Hard-type: we got a cut down easy version because reasons.

I'm going WAAAAY off old memory, as at the time I was trying to get Wingcommander Armada to fucking run right on my PC (MSCDEX GRAH!), my SNES was collecting dust (and Internet? Ha!): even FFVI was a craps shoot in the west. That we got it at all was a miracle.

The term "serious gamer" or even "hardcore gamer" is incredibly arbitary and frankly, an attempt at gaming elitism. There are a wide variety of gaming audiences (not just "hardcore" and "casual", that's just a self-misleading fallacy) as computers have become involved in everyone's life.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I see some good points from Mr Bean's argument since:
A. I don't mind making a hypocrite out of myself
B. I've had some more time to think about this.

But I'm not going to sit here and speak for him: I'm just going to rant about my own experiences a bit.

There's always been a heavy amount of elitism when it comes the gaming and there always will be. Just like for any hobby, sport, anything. When I was growing up, this was all "nerd shit." No "normal" person was going to argue the delicacies of UT over Quake. Just the Arena Shooters "community" alone was filled to the brim with "my shit is awesome, yours sucks." You found this everywhere.

At the least, no one was going to argue that that being good at either didn't take dedication. That was kind of the point of "hardcore" gaming. The people arguing this were at least part of the community. I talk a lot of shit about Counter-Strike players, but at least they fucking tried. But these days, you have a new player on the scene. One that has money to burn and seemingly no taste to point where their money goes. I get blasted with articles decrying the "elitist" nature of games, but isn't that blowback to be expected? Some people put a lot of time and money into this hobby and are now marginalized because now someone with no concept of skills required to be dedicated at a game will bash on the elitism of others who took a lot of shit for helping build the hobby into the monolith it is now.

It's like two guys arguing for years which is the more skilled game: Hold'em or 5 card stud. Then some guy comes in a says "GO FISH FOR LIFE BITCHES, you take this too seriously. You're pushing guys like me out and saying I'm not a real card player." And then every company, and even those who got in due to the money they potentially saw of fleecing someone with a very wide definition of skill out of, turns their attention to this group to the exclusion of those that were in from the beginning. They do this because said person/group has no concept of the system because at any point before they got into it, it "wasn't cool/for virgins" whatever.

I don't give a shit about their opinion. They are free to spend their money however they see fit. But when there's money to be made and you have a choice: an informed base who is shrewd about their purchases or one that will not only buy whatever is marketed the most but will also give their choice the same amount of elitism as so called "virgin nerds" do, I say "fuck you with a 10-foot-pole."

This is pretty much how I feel about the current AAA trend. I'm not saying they owe me shit, but I also don't owe them a fucking thing and I got real tired of both them and "news" outlets deriding people like me who are tired of getting shit on for demanding quality as "entitled." Also, that video games seem to be a new area where they can say "I CAN'T BELIEVE STUFF LIKE THIS HAPPENS" as if the bullshit that pervades gaming isn't heavily involved in other entertainment or even the workforce.

If I had to come up with one example off-hand to sum up my rant: If saying the guy who spent $100 unlocking bullshit in Angry Birds is a blight on the industry and should not be considered "a gamer" (which is a term I've never really liked and have come to despise) makes me an elitist, then I'm guilty as charged. It's because of people like him, those that bought DLC horse-armor, didn't bitch about unlocks in BF2, and will spend hundreds of dollars on F2P/P2W bullshit that my hobby is a huge fucking joke. But even moreso so than that: him and gossip rags will write long rants (even long than mine) of the click-bait nature about how people like me are bad for the industry.

[ray245]

The sales figures don't really seem to agree and I have to ask: isn't the emphasis on AAA shovelware and beating franchises to death part of the problem with the shit state of gaming?

Look at the Sales figure of Nintendo's games other than the Wii Sports games. Look at the Pokemon games for example. They've been dropping in sales number since the original Red/Blue versions, while new CoD titles manage to outsold the original CoD games by a massive amount.

Then wouldn't they just be in the same boat as MS and Sony: selling cut-down PCs at a loss and praying third-party developers deliver? Ninty has way too much power in the first-party and "we own you" third-party development (such as Rare and Retro just for two historically) to bother with that. Zelda and Mario push units everywhere. Metroid seems to have eaten the dust (and Nintendo also be willing to take stupidly HUGE risks with the IP) because it's essentially a western title and has only achieved popularity outside of Japan. Unlike Final Fantasy which wasn't "popular" in the west until FFVII.

I'm not saying they should go down the same route as Microsoft and Sony. I'm saying they should create new IP instead of relying on the same old franchise like Mario and Pokemon alone. New IP that offers the players a variety of options if they don't like the "kiddy" stuff. It's not like the Mario and Zelda games are excellent examples of innovation either.

Look at the recent best selling games since 2010.

Grand Theft Auto V 2013 PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Windows 65 million[5]
Call of Duty: Ghosts 2013 Windows, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Wii U 19 million[26]
Diablo III 2012 Microsoft Windows, OS X, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Xbox One, PlayStation 4 30 million[10][n 3]
Call of Duty: Black Ops II 2012 Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii U 24.2 million[12]
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 2011 Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii 26.5 million[12]
Battlefield 3 2011 Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 20 million[22]
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 2011 Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 20 million[23]
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2010 Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii 26.2 million[12]
Kinect Adventures! 2010 Xbox 360 24 million[14]
Pokémon Black and White 2010 Nintendo DS 15.6 million[9]

It's wiki but it gives a decent sense of how Nintendo has fallen behind since the Wii was released.

[TheFeniX]

Look at the Sales figure of Nintendo's games other than the Wii Sports games. Look at the Pokemon games for example. They've been dropping in sales number since the original Red/Blue versions, while new CoD titles manage to outsold the original CoD games by a massive amount.

True. I shouldn't have said sales, I should have said profits. The last time I can recall Nintendo taking a loss was near the WiiU release which I looked into because of shitposters online reveling in "Nintendo is DEAD!" as if one loss could destroy a company with their business model. Since 2012, they haven't really changed it. Even when "news" sites were saying mobile gaming was going to kill the handheld market and people had finally come around to cheap PCs that fail on the basics of what they've been pushing for years: graphics.

I'm not saying they should go down the same route as Microsoft and Sony. I'm saying they should create new IP instead of relying on the same old franchise like Mario and Pokemon alone. New IP that offers the players a variety of options if they don't like the "kiddy" stuff. It's not like the Mario and Zelda games are excellent examples of innovation either.

"Gamers" these days have been programmed to view anything not brown and bloom to be "kiddie" stuff. To break into that market, Nintendo would have to overhaul the kind of hardware they've been producing to give us more of the same tired BS. Sure, Zelda hasn't innovated much, like CoD. Same premise really.

Except CoD just gives me more weapons and a twist on some parkour shit. And they seem to LOOOOVE Twist ending shit so hard. They've been aping Modern Warfare one forever. Meanwhile, Mario alone exists in multiple different genres and seen numerous innovations. Just comparing three of the 3D releases: 64, Sunshine, Galaxy. Is anyone really going to say they're the same game? The Prime Trilogy is a better example at not innovating: they didn't need to. On the Zelda front, there's nothing really "innovative" I guess. But no game in the series IMO plays the same. Sure, there's the basic sword-play, but Nintendo heaps loads new mechanics on top of it to try and keep the series fresh.

I don't know if I care to have Nintendo proper start coming up with new IPs. For American audiences, they seem to do their best work when they let third-party teams lose and do their thing: Rare, Retro, etc. Oh yea, and the last time I recall them going for a more serious game, with a narrative and a story to tell, we got Other M. So, if they do anything, I'd rather than stick to gameplay because they do that very well.

Look at the recent best selling games since 2010.

SNIP

It's wiki but it gives a decent sense of how Nintendo has fallen behind since the Wii was released.

Only one game on that list is first party (Kinect Adventures) and it came with the Kinect. Those are not successes for their respective consoles. In fact, without those games, those consoles wouldn't have anything worth playing and no reason to but them except as Blu-Ray and Netflix boxes. Nintendo seems to have a large stake in Pokemon, so that's basically their IP. I wonder if they even pay licensing.

Either way, the COST to make the games on your list is staggering (due usually to licensing and voice-acting). Not to mention you almost double the cost due to marketing. Those sales have to be their to justify what they spend making and marketing them. And MS and Sony have been known to float some costs just to get the games out because they need them. They make little to no money on most of their hardware sales. Meanwhile, Nintendo makes money on every console sold, so there's no reason to fight the other two when they can continue what they do with little competition.

Diablo 3 had to be the biggest winner in that group. By far. D3 must have cost pennies to make vs GTA, plus what they made on the auction house bullshit.

[ray245]

]True. I shouldn't have said sales, I should have said profits. The last time I can recall Nintendo taking a loss was near the WiiU release which I looked into because of shitposters online reveling in "Nintendo is DEAD!" as if one loss could destroy a company with their business model. Since 2012, they haven't really changed it. Even when "news" sites were saying mobile gaming was going to kill the handheld market and people had finally come around to cheap PCs that fail on the basics of what they've been pushing for years: graphics.

I don't think Nintendo will die or anything. Although I think they will decline in terms of market share. Plenty of video game companies fade away because they could not keep up with the market trend. There will always be a market for Nintendo games, but the question is whether the market will grow or decline.

"Gamers" these days have been programmed to view anything not brown and bloom to be "kiddie" stuff. To break into that market, Nintendo would have to overhaul the kind of hardware they've been producing to give us more of the same tired BS. Sure, Zelda hasn't innovated much, like CoD. Same premise really.

Well, not really. They could help if they have a variety of art style for their games. I don't think people mind lower graphics as long as the art style is attractive enough. The problem for me is their games have less variety compared to games on other platforms.

Except CoD just gives me more weapons and a twist on some parkour shit. And they seem to LOOOOVE Twist ending shit so hard. They've been aping Modern Warfare one forever. Meanwhile, Mario alone exists in multiple different genres and seen numerous innovations. Just comparing three of the 3D releases: 64, Sunshine, Galaxy. Is anyone really going to say they're the same game? The Prime Trilogy is a better example at not innovating: they didn't need to. On the Zelda front, there's nothing really "innovative" I guess. But no game in the series IMO plays the same. Sure, there's the basic sword-play, but Nintendo heaps loads new mechanics on top of it to try and keep the series fresh.

Except the game's graphics and art styles imply things are mostly the same to the uninformed consumers. A big portion of the video game market is made up of males in the 18-35 demographics. As video gamers becomes more mature, would Nintendo be able to capture that segment of the market and grow?

I don't know if I care to have Nintendo proper start coming up with new IPs. For American audiences, they seem to do their best work when they let third-party teams lose and do their thing: Rare, Retro, etc. Oh yea, and the last time I recall them going for a more serious game, with a narrative and a story to tell, we got Other M. So, if they do anything, I'd rather than stick to gameplay because they do that very well.

I don't think. I think people will get tired of certain IP at times if it looks the same. Chances are people will not even bother trying the Nintendo games because it looks too kiddish.

Only one game on that list is first party (Kinect Adventures) and it came with the Kinect. Those are not successes for their respective consoles. In fact, without those games, those consoles wouldn't have anything worth playing and no reason to but them except as Blu-Ray and Netflix boxes. Nintendo seems to have a large stake in Pokemon, so that's basically their IP. I wonder if they even pay licensing.

And that's my point. If they want to have success for their consoles, they need new IP that will attract people to get them in the first place. Now that the novelty of the Wii have worn off, Nitendo needs something to convince people to come back to the consoles. The only thing they have right now is probably Pokemon, but that is an IP that has been declining from its peak sales since the first gen-games. In the meantime, Nintendo allowed many newer IP to overtake Pokemon in terms of popularity. If they could not come up with new IP, they should make some effort to acquire new IP that fits their mould. Minecraft is probably a good IP to acquire.

Either way, the COST to make the games on your list is staggering (due usually to licensing and voice-acting). Not to mention you almost double the cost due to marketing. Those sales have to be their to justify what they spend making and marketing them. And MS and Sony have been known to float some costs just to get the games out because they need them. They make little to no money on most of their hardware sales. Meanwhile, Nintendo makes money on every console sold, so there's no reason to fight the other two when they can continue what they do with little competition.

It's winning the battle in the short term but losing the war in the long run. Nitendo have tremedous success with the Wii, but they need to convince people to buy the next Console they come up with. The new consoles needs to offer the consumers both old and new IP, because they can't rely on a gimmick for too long. Espesically when it is too easy for their competitors to mimck those gimmicks like the Xbox Kinect.

Diablo 3 had to be the biggest winner in that group. By far. D3 must have cost pennies to make vs GTA, plus what they made on the auction house bullshit.

Blizzard have always been able to command a huge share of the market because they've managed to keep their IP relevant and updated for the consumers. Diablo 3 is basically the same as Star Wars TFA, as it managed to earn a massive profit off nostalgia alone. It's not shameful to buy a new Diablo game or a new Warcraft game for a 18-30 year old male compared to a new Pokemon or Mario game.

Too many of Nintendo's products are seen as kiddish and that will always limit their market reach. They should have expanded the variety of games and IP.

[Mr Bean]

Except the game's graphics and art styles imply things are mostly the same to the uninformed consumers. A big portion of the video game market is made up of males in the 18-35 demographics. As video gamers becomes more mature, would Nintendo be able to capture that segment of the market and grow?

This I disagree with strongly, what did all 18-35 year olds stop breeding this generation? Heck Nintendo sales would be strong among first time fathers looking to get their kids into video games because hey it's something little Timmy and I can play. You can see this in the latest Mario game where the person using the pad is almost designed to be the older adult while the kids get to be Mario since the entire design is such you can stun enemies and make platforms so Little Timmy can make those hard jumps or deal with that tricky enemy.

I think Nintendo is going to fall into the pre-Iphone Apple rut. They are going to make money, generate headlines but not dominate any markets... just a healthy billion dollars in profit each year which frankly is a pretty awesome place to be as a business.

[ray245]

Except the game's graphics and art styles imply things are mostly the same to the uninformed consumers. A big portion of the video game market is made up of males in the 18-35 demographics. As video gamers becomes more mature, would Nintendo be able to capture that segment of the market and grow?

This I disagree with strongly, what did all 18-35 year olds stop breeding this generation? Heck Nintendo sales would be strong among first time fathers looking to get their kids into video games because hey it's something little Timmy and I can play. You can see this in the latest Mario game where the person using the pad is almost designed to be the older adult while the kids get to be Mario since the entire design is such you can stun enemies and make platforms so Little Timmy can make those hard jumps or deal with that tricky enemy.

I think Nintendo is going to fall into the pre-Iphone Apple rut. They are going to make money, generate headlines but not dominate any markets... just a healthy billion dollars in profit each year which frankly is a pretty awesome place to be as a business.

I think you are overestimating the amount of people in this age range that would have kids. And even many Nintendo games requires kids to be a little older than 4 to be able to play them decently. The 18-35 age is decent because they are the generation that is old enough to have sufficient disposable cash to buy countless video games every year.

[TheFeniX]

I don't think Nintendo will die or anything. Although I think they will decline in terms of market share. Plenty of video game companies fade away because they could not keep up with the market trend. There will always be a market for Nintendo games, but the question is whether the market will grow or decline.

People have been saying this about Nintendo for decades. In fact, in the SNES era, when Ninty doubled-down on "kiddie" content: SEGA fans and magazines (obviously not Nintendo Power) were talking about how Nintendo was losing their edge. It was a given they'd get run out by SEGA. When they lost Final Fantasy to Sony: people were saying the same thing. They said the same thing when prototypes for the Wii came out.

Because, for some reason: people still think "maturity" for video games comes from making oorah shooters or shitty movies.

Well, not really. They could help if they have a variety of art style for their games. I don't think people mind lower graphics as long as the art style is attractive enough. The problem for me is their games have less variety compared to games on other platforms.

Are you... are you fucking with me? Compare the art style of Wind Waker to Twilight Princess. Now, take a screenshot of one of many CoD or Battlefield games and see if you can spot the difference in the games at a glance. Then get back to me. The Gamecube alone had some of the best effects out of any console, maybe not in pure horse-power, but holy shit games looked spectacular for the time on that system. Sure, the PS2 had nice looking games, but a lot of that came out of pre-rendered cutscenes.

Except the game's graphics and art styles imply things are mostly the same to the uninformed consumers. A big portion of the video game market is made up of males in the 18-35 demographics. As video gamers becomes more mature, would Nintendo be able to capture that segment of the market and grow?

Dudebros (READ: the kids, of any age, who think they need blood and guns and a protag who ain't got time for this shit or is always cracking wise because there are wises to be cracked for their mature games) have been around for almost 16 years now. Nintendo doesn't need them. They've proved that over and over.

I don't think. I think people will get tired of certain IP at times if it looks the same. Chances are people will not even bother trying the Nintendo games because it looks too kiddish.

People didn't get tired of Halo, Gears, or any other number of hugely popular IPs because they looked the same. They got tired of them because they games became uninspired and bland, mostly cash-ins.

And that's my point. If they want to have success for their consoles, they need new IP that will attract people to get them in the first place. Now that the novelty of the Wii have worn off, Nitendo needs something to convince people to come back to the consoles. The only thing they have right now is probably Pokemon, but that is an IP that has been declining from its peak sales since the first gen-games. In the meantime, Nintendo allowed many newer IP to overtake Pokemon in terms of popularity. If they could not come up with new IP, they should make some effort to acquire new IP that fits their mould. Minecraft is probably a good IP to acquire.

Nintendo not chasing record profits at the expense of their company is actually a good thing. Buying up a Minecraft license isn't going to help.

It's winning the battle in the short term but losing the war in the long run. Nitendo have tremedous success with the Wii, but they need to convince people to buy the next Console they come up with. The new consoles needs to offer the consumers both old and new IP, because they can't rely on a gimmick for too long. Espesically when it is too easy for their competitors to mimck those gimmicks like the Xbox Kinect.

The WiiU got through a weak start and Nintendo is doing fine. They just weren't allowed a misstep unlike MS and Sony because they kicked the shit out of them last time.

And accusing Nintendo of playing the short game doesn't make any sense. They've existed as a company for over 100 years for a reason. They continually deal with the gaming "community" and gossip rags accusing them of not knowing where they're going or how X idea will kill them in the long-term and it doesn't happen. It because they don't need to compete with CoD to payout shareholders. This is a good thing since it does not limit what ideas they have.

They can milk the same IPs because they don't fuck the consumer in the process unlike a lot of other studios. If a company like EA wasn't constantly looking for new IPs to acquire and demolish while squeezing every last microgram of blood out of them, they've have dried up years ago.

Blizzard have always been able to command a huge share of the market because they've managed to keep their IP relevant and updated for the consumers. Diablo 3 is basically the same as Star Wars TFA, as it managed to earn a massive profit off nostalgia alone. It's not shameful to buy a new Diablo game or a new Warcraft game for a 18-30 year old male compared to a new Pokemon or Mario game.

To the people who would try to shame me for playing Pokemon (never played it) or Mario (played a lot of them): please get the fuck out of my hobby. See, back in the day, they just talked shit to me and people like me in outside venues. Now, they are the focus of the hobby they used to mock. Their idiotic purchasing habits affect everything about my hobby. I don't want more of them: I want them gone.

And let's be honest here: what was relevant about Diablo at the time? The IP was dead for 10 years. So, why is it just the idea of a new Diablo game got people worked up? Maybe for the same reason Zelda gets people riled up. But I'll say that without this "new"group, who listened to the hype from fans and the marketing, and allowed Blizzard to release a game that was Diablo in pretty much name and assets only: they should be glad this group exists.

If ever there was a "kiddie" game mechanically, it would be Diablo 3. It's basically a mobile game, and none of the Blizzard money and ass-kissing from review sites can change the fact Diablo 3 wasn't game made for fans of the originals. But it had some blood and demons and was rated M for pretty much only that reason, even though the themes are hilariously kid friendly outside of that, so MATURE GAME FOR MATURE GAMERS! Had this game came out a year or so after Diablo 2, even without the always online bullshit, I'd bet good money it would have totally killed the franchise.

Actiblizz seems to be well aware that they're exploiting their IPs to an unsustainable level. This is likely a large reason they push cash-shop bullshit and are only now trying to expand into other genres since the WoW juggernaut is running low on steam (all of it their fault).

[Mr Bean]

I think you are overestimating the amount of people in this age range that would have kids. And even many Nintendo games requires kids to be a little older than 4 to be able to play them decently. The 18-35 age is decent because they are the generation that is old enough to have sufficient disposable cash to buy countless video games every year.

Listen to what your saying, people born between 1981 and 1998 are not having any kids. I don't remember any massive birthrate drop in anyplace Nintendo was sold (Aside from Japan of course) so on the surface of that it makes little sense.

Think about how much a kid from 1980 had to struggle to convenience there parents to buy them Mario vs the kids born in 2010? Do you remember all the crap kids in the 1970s and 1980s had to go through to get the video games they wanted to play? The reason why their was a console war in the first place? Your statement seems silly ray.

[ray245]

People have been saying this about Nintendo for decades. In fact, in the SNES era, when Ninty doubled-down on "kiddie" content: SEGA fans and magazines (obviously not Nintendo Power) were talking about how Nintendo was losing their edge. It was a given they'd get run out by SEGA. When they lost Final Fantasy to Sony: people were saying the same thing. They said the same thing when prototypes for the Wii came out.

Because, for some reason: people still think "maturity" for video games comes from making oorah shooters or shitty movies.

Of course, no one is saying anything about Nintendo fading from existence. The problem is the past few years haven't been good for Nintendo. They can obviously turn things around if they wanted to, but how long will it take? Or how much of the marketshare can they claw back from Sony and Microsoft?

Are you... are you fucking with me? Compare the art style of Wind Waker to Twilight Princess. Now, take a screenshot of one of many CoD or Battlefield games and see if you can spot the difference in the games at a glance. Then get back to me. The Gamecube alone had some of the best effects out of any console, maybe not in pure horse-power, but holy shit games looked spectacular for the time on that system. Sure, the PS2 had nice looking games, but a lot of that came out of pre-rendered cutscenes.

To most people it still doesn't shake off the kiddy label. Compare to Sony titles like this: and this .

I am not talking about the quality of the game

Dudebros (READ: the kids, of any age, who think they need blood and guns and a protag who ain't got time for this shit or is always cracking wise because there are wises to be cracked for their mature games) have been around for almost 16 years now. Nintendo doesn't need them. They've proved that over and over.

And that is why the popularity of Pokemon has declined while allowing games like Battlefield, GTA, Sims, Elder Scrolls to catch up to them. Every Pokemon game has sold less titles compared to its peak in the 90s.

People didn't get tired of Halo, Gears, or any other number of hugely popular IPs because they looked the same. They got tired of them because they games became uninspired and bland, mostly cash-ins.

How a video game looks matter, espeically to people who haven't played it yet. People won't know if the new Mario games is very different from the older Mario games because they will not even give it a chance.

Nintendo not chasing record profits at the expense of their company is actually a good thing.

Not if you are a publically listed company.

Buying up a Minecraft license isn't going to help.

Why not?

The WiiU got through a weak start and Nintendo is doing fine. They just weren't allowed a misstep unlike MS and Sony because they kicked the shit out of them last time.

And accusing Nintendo of playing the short game doesn't make any sense. They've existed as a company for over 100 years for a reason. They continually deal with the gaming "community" and gossip rags accusing them of not knowing where they're going or how X idea will kill them in the long-term and it doesn't happen. It because they don't need to compete with CoD to payout shareholders. This is a good thing since it does not limit what ideas they have.

They don't need to compete with CoD games by making similar CoD games. They just need to have new IP or old IP that could match the consistent sales figure of CoD games every year.

They can milk the same IPs because they don't fuck the consumer in the process unlike a lot of other studios. If a company like EA wasn't constantly looking for new IPs to acquire and demolish while squeezing every last microgram of blood out of them, they've have dried up years ago.

In an age where even Disney is acquiring new IP to stay competitive, I think Nintendo cannot afford to rest on their laurels. New popular IP they created would help Nintendo stay relevant in a changing market. Sure Tetris is still one of the best selling games up until today, but many other franchise would stagnate if there isn't anything new to attract new customers.

To the people who would try to shame me for playing Pokemon (never played it) or Mario (played a lot of them): please get the fuck out of my hobby. See, back in the day, they just talked shit to me and people like me in outside venues. Now, they are the focus of the hobby they used to mock. Their idiotic purchasing habits affect everything about my hobby. I don't want more of them: I want them gone.

It doesn't matter what you think. It's about plenty of other people who will never touch a Pokemon game or a Mario game again as an older teenager or adult because they fear what their peers think.

And let's be honest here: what was relevant about Diablo at the time? The IP was dead for 10 years. So, why is it just the idea of a new Diablo game got people worked up? Maybe for the same reason Zelda gets people riled up. But I'll say that without this "new"group, who listened to the hype from fans and the marketing, and allowed Blizzard to release a game that was Diablo in pretty much name and assets only: they should be glad this group exists.

It's a popular franchise that allows older people to get back into it without much shame from their peers? Everyone in my army unit was talking about the game and playing it for days. They chatted about it openly influencing each other about the "must-buy" quality of the game before it was released. The same can't be said about a new Zelda game.

If ever there was a "kiddie" game mechanically, it would be Diablo 3. It's basically a mobile game, and none of the Blizzard money and ass-kissing from review sites can change the fact Diablo 3 wasn't game made for fans of the originals. But it had some blood and demons and was rated M for pretty much only that reason, even though the themes are hilariously kid friendly outside of that, so MATURE GAME FOR MATURE GAMERS! Had this game came out a year or so after Diablo 2, even without the always online bullshit, I'd bet good money it would have totally killed the franchise.

Perception matters here. The same people that were excited about the new Diablo game and talked about it aren't going to be people who played games that often. In a way, Diablo 3 is a casual game, abit with a mature appearance. That is a good combination to get casual gamers into buying it.

Actiblizz seems to be well aware that they're exploiting their IPs to an unsustainable level. This is likely a large reason they push cash-shop bullshit and are only now trying to expand into other genres since the WoW juggernaut is running low on steam (all of it their fault).

Which is why they are making new IP like Overwatch.

Listen to what your saying, people born between 1981 and 1998 are not having any kids. I don't remember any massive birthrate drop in anyplace Nintendo was sold (Aside from Japan of course) so on the surface of that it makes little sense.

Think about how much a kid from 1980 had to struggle to convenience there parents to buy them Mario vs the kids born in 2010? Do you remember all the crap kids in the 1970s and 1980s had to go through to get the video games they wanted to play? The reason why their was a console war in the first place? Your statement seems silly ray.

That's not what I'm saying. I am not saying people are having fewer kids compared to the past, or kids having a harder time convincing their parents to buy games for them. I am saying not everyone in that group have kids or have kids old enough to play games ( other than phone app games). This group has the ability to buy games for themselves, and the amount of people buying games for themselves might be higher than the group that buys games for their kids.

[TheFeniX]

Of course, no one is saying anything about Nintendo fading from existence. The problem is the past few years haven't been good for Nintendo. They can obviously turn things around if they wanted to, but how long will it take? Or how much of the marketshare can they claw back from Sony and Microsoft?

You're assuming they care to claw at that marketshare when it's been apparent that with them bowing out of the HD race with Sorny and Magnetbox with the Wii says the opposite. The WiiU is making money and so did titles like Splatoon.

To most people it still doesn't shake off the kiddy label. Compare to Sony titles like this:

I am not talking about the quality of the game

First off: fuck them. God of War is a mature rated game targeted toward edgy 12-year-olds. IT is not a mature game, it's just a mediocre hacknslash with "mature" themes such as blood and guts and ANGER! Oh and boobs. You're not getting what I'm saying: the people who think tits, violence, a "realistic" artstyle, and "don't take no shit from anyone" protags is somehow more mature than other games, such as Legend of Zelda are idiots whose opinion should be discarded as shit.

And even Nintendo proper games actually deal with adult themes. The problem is subtly, something that doesn't play well in the current marketplace.

And that is why the popularity of Pokemon has declined while allowing games like Battlefield, GTA, Sims, Elder Scrolls to catch up to them. Every Pokemon game has sold less titles compared to its peak in the 90s.

Pokemon is not everything Nintendo is. Nintendo kicked the shit out of Mature™ consoles specifically due to ignoring them. They are now only doing very well for themselves rather than making all the money ever.

How a video game looks matter, espeically to people who haven't played it yet. People won't know if the new Mario games is very different from the older Mario games because they will not even give it a chance.

Once again: those people are kids (either really or mentally) and their opinion doesn't mean shit to me. Just like Fallout 4 fans who shit on the originals for being "dated."

Nintendo not chasing record profits at the expense of their company is actually a good thing.

Not if you are a publically listed company.

What makes you think I agree with the monolith-izing of the gaming industry? The American business (in general) idea of profits at the expense of everything else is a fucking scourge to everything decent. I wish these worthless fucks like those in charge at EA or Activision would just fuck off because they are literally doing everything they can to squeeze the life out of the industry because they have zero fucks to give about it. We are walking wallets waiting to be turned upside down and emptied out.

They don't need to compete with CoD games by making similar CoD games. They just need to have new IP or old IP that could match the consistent sales figure of CoD games every year.

And do this by marketting to the same group of people who have been trained to view graphics > all. Once again, how does Nintendo get there without buying into the same BS MS and Sony have?

In an age where even Disney is acquiring new IP to stay competitive, I think Nintendo cannot afford to rest on their laurels. New popular IP they created would help Nintendo stay relevant in a changing market. Sure Tetris is still one of the best selling games up until today, but many other franchise would stagnate if there isn't anything new to attract new customers.

What new is actually coming out of the industry right now, ignoring indie development? Pretty much nothing, except more cash-shop. Everyone is too afraid to break out of molds because money.

It doesn't matter what you think. It's about plenty of other people who will never touch a Pokemon game or a Mario game again as an older teenager or adult because they fear what their peers think.

No shit? I have been saying just that for a while. And I'm glad Nintendo seems to agree with me in at least this area. These types of people are fucking awful. I really don't like them. They are (and I fucking hate this word) sheep, only bothering with video games because it has become socially acceptable (at least in certain IP) for them to do so. They are cowards with too much money on their hands and not enough sense.

I took so much shit for playing video games, PnP RPGS, Magic. Whatever: the opinions of morons didn't bother me. And now I've been supplanted. The development communities that needed to deliver in the past (or they died) have a whole new group of people who buy into hype, buy what's popular, and don't complain about shit because they don't know any better. It's the same kind of person who pays $100 for a mass-produced NFL jersey. Why would you think I would care to associate with those types of people in any way?

I've already admitted it makes sense for MS and Sony to target them. Why not fleece morons out of their money? I have not argued with you on this point because it's blatantly true. But expecting me to agree Nintendo (or anyone) should pander to them? Not a chance.

Which is why they are making new IP like Overwatch.

A TF2 clone with a twist using assets from a failed MMO. You are way to tied to appearance vs content. It also helps with them pushing ads through the b.net browser: you can't fucking ignore it if you wanted to. So.. that's actually innovative: all I want to do is play Starcraft: "BUY OVERWATCH YOU PIECE OF SHIT!"

[ray245]

You're assuming they care to claw at that marketshare when it's been apparent that with them bowing out of the HD race with Sorny and Magnetbox with the Wii says the opposite. The WiiU is making money and so did titles like Splatoon.

They were trying to do that with the Wii and the WiiU. I think it is pretty clear they do want a command of the marketshare, even if they did not want to rely on HD tech to win it.

First off: fuck them. God of War is a mature rated game targeted toward edgy 12-year-olds. IT is not a mature game, it's just a mediocre hacknslash with "mature" themes such as blood and guts and ANGER! Oh and boobs. You're not getting what I'm saying: the people who think tits, violence, a "realistic" artstyle, and "don't take no shit from anyone" protags is somehow more mature than other games, such as Legend of Zelda are idiots whose opinion should be discarded as shit.

Except this isn't about whether the consumers are smart or not. Bad movies continues to makes massive amount of money as long as they are entertaining enough like the Transformers franchise. For a business, they do need to care about market trends. They can't afford to be elitist if they wish to be the big players.

And even Nintendo proper games actually deal with adult themes. The problem is subtly, something that doesn't play well in the current marketplace.

And Nitendo is allowing other companies to run away with capturing this market. Allowing them to retain dominace over this market allows them to influence market in ways they desired, and in turn making it harder for Nintendo to sell their games as appealing to gamers.

Pokemon is not everything Nintendo is.

It's their second biggest IP after Mario, and sales has been declining for a long while now. That is not a good example of good business strategy.

Nintendo kicked the shit out of Mature™ consoles specifically due to ignoring them. They are now only doing very well for themselves rather than making all the money ever.

They can ignore them once, but they now need to find alternative ways to compete against the Xbox and the Playstation. If they can't, they will allow their rivals to grow in size continously.

Once again: those people are kids (either really or mentally) and their opinion doesn't mean shit to me. Just like Fallout 4 fans who shit on the originals for being "dated."

Except this isn't about you or what you think. Unless you can somehow convince the vast majority of gamers to share your viewpoint, companies will continue to make games you personally disliked. Activision can continue to do what they want with CoD because they control the fanbase. That's why they were arrogrant enough to force their customers to buy 2 games even when they don't want to.

What makes you think I agree with the monolith-izing of the gaming industry? The American business (in general) idea of profits at the expense of everything else is a fucking scourge to everything decent. I wish these worthless fucks like those in charge at EA or Activision would just fuck off because they are literally doing everything they can to squeeze the life out of the industry because they have zero fucks to give about it. We are walking wallets waiting to be turned upside down and emptied out.

You can complain all you want, but that isn't going to change anything. If you want change with the companies you like being in the position to affect market taste, then they need to start commanding the market.

And do this by marketting to the same group of people who have been trained to view graphics > all. Once again, how does Nintendo get there without buying into the same BS MS and Sony have?

By marketing their products as something older gamers won't be ashamed of? There's no crime in having better graphics as long as you don't lose sight of the gameplay. It's not like the graphics for the upcoming COD games have improved by much anyway.

What new is actually coming out of the industry right now, ignoring indie development? Pretty much nothing, except more cash-shop. Everyone is too afraid to break out of molds because money.

Gaming companies like most companies follows trend. If they see CoD as the best selling game of the year, chances are they will copy CoD. If Nitendo can make a best-selling game that has a broad appeal, even to the hardcore 12-year olds, then they will be the one that change the mould.

It's like the Deadpool movie. Studios were afraid to make it until the trailer recieved rave reviews. With Deadpool making so much money for the studios, every other company wants to do things differently from the past and copy Deadpool.

No shit? I have been saying just that for a while. And I'm glad Nintendo seems to agree with me in at least this area. These types of people are fucking awful. I really don't like them. They are (and I fucking hate this word) sheep, only bothering with video games because it has become socially acceptable (at least in certain IP) for them to do so. They are cowards with too much money on their hands and not enough sense.

The more you try and ignore them, the more you allow them to be the ones being influenced by companies and influencing the gaming industry in return. You can't be elitist about it if you want change.

I took so much shit for playing video games, PnP RPGS, Magic. Whatever: the opinions of morons didn't bother me. And now I've been supplanted. The development communities that needed to deliver in the past (or they died) have a whole new group of people who buy into hype, buy what's popular, and don't complain about shit because they don't know any better. It's the same kind of person who pays $100 for a mass-produced NFL jersey. Why would you think I would care to associate with those types of people in any way?

Because you need a broad audience for any change to occur?

I've already admitted it makes sense for MS and Sony to target them. Why not fleece morons out of their money? I have not argued with you on this point because it's blatantly true. But expecting me to agree Nintendo (or anyone) should pander to them? Not a chance.

Because if that happens, then fewer people would be interested in Nintendo's games? It's a slippery slope basically.

A TF2 clone with a twist using assets from a failed MMO. You are way to tied to appearance vs content. It also helps with them pushing ads through the b.net browser: you can't fucking ignore it if you wanted to. So.. that's actually innovative: all I want to do is play Starcraft: "BUY OVERWATCH YOU PIECE OF SHIT!"

That's the thing. Blizzard controls the market because they control the means you have to access games like Starcraft. If fewer people plays Blizzard games, then the chances of them being affected by ads for Overwatch will be lessened.


People who might actually like Nintendo games will never try them if those games don't even register to them. They would not have seen any trailer or ad for it because they are so used to ignoring any Nintendo ads for a long time.

[TheFeniX]

They were trying to do that with the Wii and the WiiU. I think it is pretty clear they do want a command of the marketshare, even if they did not want to rely on HD tech to win it.

The Dudebro market, also known as "Core gaming?" No they haven't.

Except this isn't about whether the consumers are smart or not. Bad movies continues to makes massive amount of money as long as they are entertaining enough like the Transformers franchise. For a business, they do need to care about market trends. They can't afford to be elitist if they wish to be the big players.

Yea, and are action movies a bastion for innovation? Or have they been beating the same dead horse for years? Either way, if the market has become so saturated with shit that you have to give up what makes your product unique in order to fight for the top, is it even worth it?

Should every movie be an action movie? Should every shop be a Walmart? Should every restaurant be a McDonalds? Judging from your arguments, you seem to think so. Thankfully, there are hold-outs. Companies willing to focus on a product, not profit at all costs.

And Nitendo is allowing other companies to run away with capturing this market. Allowing them to retain dominace over this market allows them to influence market in ways they desired, and in turn making it harder for Nintendo to sell their games as appealing to gamers.

Stupid people like stupid things. And there are a lot of stupid people or just people who don't care. Hell, even I don't mind a stupid movie here and there. But I don't want every movie to be Transformers.

They can ignore them once, but they now need to find alternative ways to compete against the Xbox and the Playstation. If they can't, they will allow their rivals to grow in size continously.

I'm just going to call it "McSorny" from now on (referencing MS and Sony). That Nintendo could compete with McSorny at all is hilarious. One of which threw an entire software division profits into bolstering one and the other a hardware division. "Compete" is a subjective term since Nintendo didn't have the luxury of selling a console at a loss and stay in business. McSorny only exist today because of a suicidal all-in into the market. I doubt Nintendo could have competed with them on their own terms back during the Wii era and it's even less of a chance they could do so now.

Except this isn't about you or what you think. Unless you can somehow convince the vast majority of gamers to share your viewpoint, companies will continue to make games you personally disliked. Activision can continue to do what they want with CoD because they control the fanbase. That's why they were arrogrant enough to force their customers to buy 2 games even when they don't want to.

Who said anything about convincing anyone? Gaming is fucking dead dude. They won like.... 15 years ago. There isn't anything to do but either buy into it or cry like a bitch while you dig for what few gems there are. I decided to cry like a bitch than dump good money after bad into the next CoD installment.

You can complain all you want, but that isn't going to change anything. If you want change with the companies you like being in the position to affect market taste, then they need to start commanding the market.

I'll say this: there is no possible chance for Nintendo to start fighting McSorny at their own game. They'd need something else to come along with pre-loaded mass-appeal like Pokemon and capitalize on it.

By marketing their products as something older gamers won't be ashamed of? There's no crime in having better graphics as long as you don't lose sight of the gameplay. It's not like the graphics for the upcoming COD games have improved by much anyway.

Like what? Conduit? A bro shooter even though their success is due to targeting people outside core gaming? What do you think could possibly get Dudebros to buy a WiiU (or whatever new hardware they put out) and Nintendo to risk losing the install base they already have?

Gaming companies like most companies follows trend. If they see CoD as the best selling game of the year, chances are they will copy CoD. If Nitendo can make a best-selling game that has a broad appeal, even to the hardcore 12-year olds, then they will be the one that change the mould.

Or they break out and form their own molds. Just because Activision and EA can't generate an original idea doesn't mean other groups can't and don't. Other groups, usually smaller who are worried about making a good product or get their money from that. Not front-loading everything with millions in marketing, bullshots, and pre-orders.

It's like the Deadpool movie. Studios were afraid to make it until the trailer recieved rave reviews. With Deadpool making so much money for the studios, every other company wants to do things differently from the past and copy Deadpool.

That's a pretty good example of why the emphasis on big profits over all is a terrible idea. Bioware did pretty much all it's best work before EA strangled them.

The more you try and ignore them, the more you allow them to be the ones being influenced by companies and influencing the gaming industry in return. You can't be elitist about it if you want change.

There will be no change. At this point, you're basically hoping for kickstarters and small development groups. Even in the cash shop business, smaller teams do it without skull-fucking customers. Such as Warframe being the game DE wanted to make instead of Dark Sector (which was garbage). These were also the guys who came up with The Darkness. See, they're game developers first and it shows in the games they make. They are far from perfect, but at least they try.

Because if that happens, then fewer people would be interested in Nintendo's games? It's a slippery slope basically.

Maybe. If, as Mr. Bean points out, there weren't new humans being born all the time. Humans with parents who won't dump on them for having fun. People said this same shit when the Star Wars pre-quels were still hugely popular. Lucas knew he already had fans, he went out and got a whole new generation of people to like Star Wars. Disney is now doing the same thing.

People who might actually like Nintendo games will never try them if those games don't even register to them. They would not have seen any trailer or ad for it because they are so used to ignoring any Nintendo ads for a long time.

Yea well, nothing lost as far as I'm concerned. I mean, Baseball has been on a slide for years, should they start throwing oval balls and running the bases 10-yards at a time? If not, should I blame them for letting Baseball still just be popular, instead of a juggernaut?

[ray245]

The Dudebro market, also known as "Core gaming?" No they haven't.

Then why do they even view Microsoft and Sony as rivials in the first place? It's like talking about Disney with their animated as a competitor against WB's DC movies. They are targetting a slighlty different demographics, but overall they are targeting the same group, moviegoers.

Yea, and are action movies a bastion for innovation? Or have they been beating the same dead horse for years? Either way, if the market has become so saturated with shit that you have to give up what makes your product unique in order to fight for the top, is it even worth it?

This isn't about whether action movies or action games are bastion of innovation. You don't have to give up what makes your product unique to win, just like Disney do not need to make dark and edgy movies to dominate the box office. What is important is companies like Disney need to make movies that earn as much as the dark and edgy movies on a consistent basis.

Should every movie be an action movie? Should every shop be a Walmart? Should every restaurant be a McDonalds? Judging from your arguments, you seem to think so. Thankfully, there are hold-outs. Companies willing to focus on a product, not profit at all costs.

See above.

Stupid people like stupid things. And there are a lot of stupid people or just people who don't care. Hell, even I don't mind a stupid movie here and there. But I don't want every movie to be Transformers.

Of course not. But you need to make movies that rival movies like Transformers in term of box office earnings. Paramount made a billion off a Transformer movie? Then Disney should be able to create a product like Toy Story 3 that has the ability to earn just as much, if not more than Transformers. That is being compeitive without losing your core identity. Giving up the fight by claiming you cater to a different niche is not good business strategy.

I'm just going to call it "McSorny" from now on (referencing MS and Sony). That Nintendo could compete with McSorny at all is hilarious. One of which threw an entire software division profits into bolstering one and the other a hardware division. "Compete" is a subjective term since Nintendo didn't have the luxury of selling a console at a loss and stay in business. McSorny only exist today because of a suicidal all-in into the market. I doubt Nintendo could have competed with them on their own terms back during the Wii era and it's even less of a chance they could do so now.

They don't have to compete against them in everything, but they need to ensure they aren't losing too much of their potential customers. I know you don't give a shit about Pokemon, but ideally, that franchise should not be declining as quickly as it did. There are people who probably don't mind a Pokemon MMO or a slightly more "mature" take on the IP, and these are potential cutsomers Nintendo could be aiming at, in conjunction with the more "kid-friendly" Pokemon games.

Look at Harry Potter as a franchise that continues to grow year after year despite starting out as a children craze.

Who said anything about convincing anyone? Gaming is fucking dead dude. They won like.... 15 years ago. There isn't anything to do but either buy into it or cry like a bitch while you dig for what few gems there are. I decided to cry like a bitch than dump good money after bad into the next CoD installment.

Complaining about how your superior taste differs from others isn't going to convince anyone in this thread about any of your points. I think there are ways which companies like Nintendo and other innovative gaming companies can stay relevant. I mean a few years ago, no one could have imagined a R-rated Deadpool movie to perform better than the X-men films. There are tons of examples of unexpected success and shift in people's taste.

I'll say this: there is no possible chance for Nintendo to start fighting McSorny at their own game. They'd need something else to come along with pre-loaded mass-appeal like Pokemon and capitalize on it.

And I am saying they should make more active efforts to create more mass-appeal games. Pokemon is a perfect example of Nintendo following the same path as the CoD games. They allowed that franchise to decline because every single one of thier games is basically a copy of the old games with slightly updated graphics. Unless you are a massive Pokemon fan as an adult/teen, there are no reasons why you want to get the newest copy of Pokemon.

Before you complain about CoD for being repetitive, you should look at how reptitive one of Nintendo's flagship title can be.

Like what? Conduit? A bro shooter even though their success is due to targeting people outside core gaming? What do you think could possibly get Dudebros to buy a WiiU (or whatever new hardware they put out) and Nintendo to risk losing the install base they already have?

A decent amount of IP other than Pokemon, Mario and Zelda? The new Nintendo console needs to be more than a simple device to play Nintendo exclusive titles. Even with the original Wii, it is actually possible to play CoD on it.

Or they break out and form their own molds. Just because Activision and EA can't generate an original idea doesn't mean other groups can't and don't. Other groups, usually smaller who are worried about making a good product or get their money from that. Not front-loading everything with millions in marketing, bullshots, and pre-orders.

And that needs to be something that companies like Nintendo should be doing. Instead they are using the same old IP like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon.

That's a pretty good example of why the emphasis on big profits over all is a terrible idea. Bioware did pretty much all it's best work before EA strangled them.

If you are a massive multinational company, you pretty much have no choice but to chase profits. If your profits is reduced, it is going to make it harder for you to climb back up again.

There will be no change. At this point, you're basically hoping for kickstarters and small development groups. Even in the cash shop business, smaller teams do it without skull-fucking customers. Such as Warframe being the game DE wanted to make instead of Dark Sector (which was garbage). These were also the guys who came up with The Darkness. See, they're game developers first and it shows in the games they make. They are far from perfect, but at least they try.

I disagree. Companies like Nintendo themselves needs to be willing to embrace some changes for their IP. If they could try and innovate with their flagship title like Pokemon, perhaps the competition would be a lot fiercer.

Maybe. If, as Mr. Bean points out, there weren't new humans being born all the time. Humans with parents who won't dump on them for having fun. People said this same shit when the Star Wars pre-quels were still hugely popular. Lucas knew he already had fans, he went out and got a whole new generation of people to like Star Wars. Disney is now doing the same thing.

But you need to update your IP constantly for it to stay fresh. Disney did it via Pixar when 2D animation is becoming less popular than 3D animation and etc. They tried to update their classic stories with a live-action adaption. The public needs to get the hint that the new Disney stuff isn't exactly like the old Disney stuff.

It's why McDonalds required all their franchise resturants to rennovate every few years. Nintendo is allowing themselves to be seen as outdated.

Yea well, nothing lost as far as I'm concerned. I mean, Baseball has been on a slide for years, should they start throwing oval balls and running the bases 10-yards at a time? If not, should I blame them for letting Baseball still just be popular, instead of a juggernaut?

I think there is something lost if that happens. Part of the fun of games is you can share your experiences with friends. Pokemon is more fun if I had more friends to play with, just like how CoD or Fifa is more fun when I get to play them with my friends at a house party.

Gaming isn't meant to be a lonely experience, or about showing off to others how your taste in gaming is "superior" to others.