The Kernel wrote:Both. 2D games don't require the same sort of assets, nor do they require anywhere near the sort of depth or scale considering their paltry cartridge size.
And when you say assets, depth and scale, you mean mostly graphically? How do you equate that to a simple game design? I'd say that's more a question of content than actual game design, which would have to be really damned complicated before the cartridge size would matter. You know, I don't think you know the first thing about game design and actually mean something entirely different.
That reason is bullshit, the PSOne sold like hotcakes at $99 and it was also four years old at the time it was released.
No,
that is bullshit. The PSOne was a cosmetic "improvement" of the PS, in that sense it was brand new. That's like saying that the GBA Micro is as old as the original, or at least the SP, when that's not how the market will see it.
Are you actually saying that Revolution
will sell as much at its launch as it will four years down the line? That's either incredibly optimistic or pessimistic, or you just have to disagree with everything I say because you're a useless jerk...
Do you want a fucking dissertation on the matter or could you take a look at the last two generations of game consoles and figure it out yourself?
So you're saying Revolution is going to sell bad because the N64 and GC did? I take it you assume Nintendo are a bunch idiots who did not learn anything from those consoles?
1) Bad corporate strategy--Nintendo is strong as a games company, not a hardware company. If they wanted to make a smart business decision they'd either pull a Sega and do games exclusively (at least in the home sector, their portable hardware unit is successful and should remain) or sell themselves to Sony or Microsoft (Microsoft would be the better choice as they could both afford Nintendo, and would be willing to pay handsomely for them).
Why is that a good business strategy when they're actually making lots money from their consoles, not to mention their games and other departments? Do I smell MS-wank? One MS to rule all, eh? Perhaps you should keep those tissues you speak of...
Also, are you saying that they are going to sell less than the 360 because they should sell themselves to MS? Not only is that totally illogical, it's border-line flame bait.
2) No deep pockets--Nintendo is very successful as a games company, but they don't have the other divisions to both financially support them and to offer diversity in other areas. Their portable division is all that kept them afloat during the Gamecube era, without it they would be in serious financial trouble today.
Where are your sources for this claim? You do know that Nintendo do other things than just games and consoles, right?
3) Terrible Third Party Support--Nintendo doesn't give third party games the same push they give to their own titles. Microsoft and Sony take the oppositte approach pushing the games that get the biggest buzz regardless of ownership rights.
They don't pay for other companies' marketing, and that's what you call "terrible" third party support? Did you know that "support" in the game industry does usually not mean "financial support"? Giving excellent but not financial support is hardly terrible.
And who is going to make these games? Nintendo? They don't have the capacity to support a console by themselves.
There will always be developers willing to make games. That question is, frankly, a load of crap. Nintendo not giving marketing support is not going to drive away third party developers and if you think it is, you'd better provide damn good sources.
Whether they admit it or not, Nintendo is competing with MS and Sony. Whether or not they are financially successful is the only goal that matters, and they won't be able to do that with a 10% market share.
They will only partly compete if their target demographic is the general population and not your average gamer. You forgot to explain why their idea is doomed to fail.
I can only assume you are an ignorant moron from this statement. When I say give devs support I am talking about giving them marketting support for their games.
If that's what you mean, then I concede, Nintendo don't do that a lot. But neither do they see the games they actually make money from through licenses and what-not as competition. That was pure bullshit from your side.
With that said, you are clearly the moron; developer support or developing incentives does not at all equal marketing support. That is two entirely different things and if marketing support was what you meant, that is what you should have written.
Developers also often leaves marketing to different teams, or sometimes altogether different companies...
Ignorant shit, this seems to be par for you. The "mainstream" are the people that buy the other game consoles you clod. Nintendo can harp all they want about "new markets" and "hyperactive synergy" but it doesn't mean shit unless they have actual proof that they can appeal to new markets. And you haven't provided shit on this subject.
I thought the example of effectively creating a handheld market for games was fairly obvious to everyone. Others tried but failed miserably at it. And who plays handheld games these days? That's right: Everyone, even, or maybe especially, people who'd never dream of touching today's stationary consoles.
Yeah, cause the Gamecube was so much more when it was launched.
Are you trying to be an ass or just an idiot, actually thinking that a cheaper console will actually sell less than the same console at a higher price?
Now THIS is wank. You think Nintendo will capture the majority of the market? Do you have any idea how much of it Sony owns right now?
Do you have any idea how much of the market Nintendo owned when Sony joined in
Nintendo can't even keep up with Microsoft worldwide despite a commanding lead in Japan and you think they can capture the world market?
They're trying an entirely different approach to gaming. Your entire reasoning is irrelevant for Revolution, because you assume they will do the same things, target the same audience and have the same marketing strategies as MS and Sony. They won't and you still haven't explained why you think that is so impossible a goal to accomplish. Everyone likes to play games,
far fewer like the way games are played on consoles today.
