"It’ll leave your mouth open, At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new game console. We have never done what others have. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue this time as well. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouth open.”
Nintendo Confirms New Console for 2012, Details at E3 2011
"It’ll leave your mouth open, At Nintendo we always have the obligation to surprise users with a new game console. We have never done what others have. We prefer to create something new that catches attention, and I think this will continue this time as well. Surely the new Nintendo machine will leave you all with your mouth open.”
" @SeriouslyNow said:The Gamecube failed for entirely different reasons and it still had gimmicks - it was small, made for portability and it was friendly. I know that people like you like to think you understand the market because you've read somewhere that motion controls made the Wii as successful as it was, or that the fact that it being so successful means that it must have had really broad appeal and so didn't appeal to "gamers" but really, both of those concepts are fallacious in extreme.I was referring to the Gamecube... the last time they just made a traditional console that was more powerful than it's direct competition... If they made a NintendoStation 360, they would fail. They need to have some innovation or "gimmick" in order to be successful." @Wrighteous86 said:
My god, are people still trying say that Nintendo failed? Nintendo didn't fail at all this round. The won - over 60% of market share. MS hasn't won the market at all. You really need to wake to reality. "" @Everyones_A_Critic said:
Because... you want Nintendo to fail again?" I kind of wish it was just a normal game console and didn't strive to be different. "
They can't directly compete with the other two systems anymore, especially given their poor relations with third parties.
Even if they get the same games as 360 and PS3 on the Wii2, why would you buy the Nintendo version of the multiplatform game? Because Wii2 might be more powerful? That doesn't help the PS3. There's no way that Nintendo will be in the lead by being the same as their competitors because that market has already been won by Microsoft.
Coming in this late with something moderately more powerful will not be enough to get the most sales. They need something besides graphics to sway public opinion in their favor... that's a lesson Sony has learned on both the console and handheld fronts this generation.
""
And MS won the "gamer" market, which is what I was referring to. Wii was obviously more successful overall.
- Nintendo has always had one consistent gimmick; to make good games using well known characters and franchises in house and for the most part this is exactly what it does. The in house part is really important here because it allows them a level of quality control which most other console companies can only dream of. You see, Sony and MS both do a lot more than just home consoles and so every ounce of talent they apply to their consoles is taken from outside and this is almost the exact opposite with Nintendo's own properties. Its tertiary sales all derive from the success those primary franchises, specifically Mario games. Mario is Nintendo. As long as his games are 100% solid then everything else flows from that. Nintendo doesn't need a gimmick to entice new customers because they have already so much brand loyalty that even a slight hiccup like the Gamecube hasn't changed their landscape much over the last 30 years. The fact that Nintendo chooses to try new ideas with each successive generation (NES - game saves battery backed, SNES - multi channel audio, network play, censorship appeal, N64 - texture filtering, unique controller for specific gametypes, high resolution upgrade support, GCN - unique disk format to prevent/slow piracy, Wii - Motion Controls) means that they are interested in seeing what ideas they have come to fruition. Each time they launch a new system these new ideas are gambles for them, not ploys to entice customers. Mario is the ploy. Quality gaming product is the gimmick.
- There is no specific gamer market. We all play games. Even I, a PC hardcore centrist, had to finally accept that reality. Anyone who thinks themselves as more of a gamer than someone else based on what platform they play or what games they like is a fucking idiot. If you truly believe MS won the gamer market then be prepared to once again pay for the privilege of playing games on your choice of 'gamer' platform. The truth is you're just being marketed to using the 'this is more AUTHENTIC than that' spiel. It's 100% Juice all over again. Seriously, wake the fuck up.
@Zor:
I doubt the PR guys at Sony and MS never considered the possibility that Nintendo would release a follow-up console to the severely underpowered WII within 6 years.
It seems easy.At E3 Nintendo will be showing demos of games that will not come out for at least a year, if not 18 months, for a console that will require at least a 250 dollar investment out of consumers.
What they will do most likely is show off lots of great games for existing consoles that most gamers have already paid for in full (and for new consumers, announce a 50 dollar price cut) Microsoft will show some good Kinect stuff, GOW3, and one or two new unannounced games. Sony will be in the middle of releasing Infamous 2, and will be showing Uncharted 3 and Twisted Metal. Sony will also show a coulple of new games, maybe GOW4.
Both MS and Sony will be getting Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, and several other big third party games, that will come out this year, and again emphasize that these games are coming out for consoles that exist now, and in many cases are already in consumers homes right now.
I always said Nintendo would be the first out of the gate with their next console. I mean it makes sense, their system was never designed for the 10 year cycle that Sony and MS are trying.
I expect about half of these rumors are true. I mean a sensor bar built into the controller doesn't make any sense. The sensor bar was used to let the camera on WiiRemote tell where the TV is, knowing where itself is doesn't make sense.
I also hope the rumor about it being the size of a 360 is dead wrong. One of my favorite things about the Wii is that it takes up almost no space and I would suspect a Japanese company would be pushing for that type of form factor again.
Hearing the word "Stream" makes me have to go Wii.
It's 2006 all over again with the Nintendo-piss jokes.
Well colour me green!
"Right, because of all console makers, Nintendo are the ones who emphasize the importance of online gaming the most.Wii and Stream, come on Nintendo....
"
" @PeasantAbuse said:"Right, because of all console makers, Nintendo are the ones who emphasize the importance of online gaming the most. "Wii and Stream, come on Nintendo....
"
I was just trying to imply that I thought both names were incredibly shitty.
Wow, those personal attacks because I have a different opinion than you do really help to strengthen your argument." @Wrighteous86 said:
The Gamecube failed for entirely different reasons and it still had gimmicks - it was small, made for portability and it was friendly. I know that people like you like to think you understand the market because you've read somewhere that motion controls made the Wii as successful as it was, or that the fact that it being so successful means that it must have had really broad appeal and so didn't appeal to "gamers" but really, both of those concepts are fallacious in extreme." @SeriouslyNow said:
I was referring to the Gamecube... the last time they just made a traditional console that was more powerful than it's direct competition... If they made a NintendoStation 360, they would fail. They need to have some innovation or "gimmick" in order to be successful." @Wrighteous86 said:
My god, are people still trying say that Nintendo failed? Nintendo didn't fail at all this round. The won - over 60% of market share. MS hasn't won the market at all. You really need to wake to reality. "" @Everyones_A_Critic said:
Because... you want Nintendo to fail again?" I kind of wish it was just a normal game console and didn't strive to be different. "
They can't directly compete with the other two systems anymore, especially given their poor relations with third parties.
Even if they get the same games as 360 and PS3 on the Wii2, why would you buy the Nintendo version of the multiplatform game? Because Wii2 might be more powerful? That doesn't help the PS3. There's no way that Nintendo will be in the lead by being the same as their competitors because that market has already been won by Microsoft.
Coming in this late with something moderately more powerful will not be enough to get the most sales. They need something besides graphics to sway public opinion in their favor... that's a lesson Sony has learned on both the console and handheld fronts this generation.
"
And MS won the "gamer" market, which is what I was referring to. Wii was obviously more successful overall.
""
- Nintendo has always had one consistent gimmick; to make good games using well known characters and franchises in house and for the most part this is exactly what it does. The in house part is really important here because it allows them a level of quality control which most other console companies can only dream of. You see, Sony and MS both do a lot more than just home consoles and so every ounce of talent they apply to their consoles is taken from outside and this is almost the exact opposite with Nintendo's own properties. Its tertiary sales all derive from the success those primary franchises, specifically Mario games. Mario is Nintendo. As long as his games are 100% solid then everything else flows from that. Nintendo doesn't need a gimmick to entice new customers because they have already so much brand loyalty that even a slight hiccup like the Gamecube hasn't changed their landscape much over the last 30 years. The fact that Nintendo chooses to try new ideas with each successive generation (NES - game saves battery backed, SNES - multi channel audio, network play, censorship appeal, N64 - texture filtering, unique controller for specific gametypes, high resolution upgrade support, GCN - unique disk format to prevent/slow piracy, Wii - Motion Controls) means that they are interested in seeing what ideas they have come to fruition. Each time they launch a new system these new ideas are gambles for them, not ploys to entice customers. Mario is the ploy. Quality gaming product is the gimmick.
- There is no specific gamer market. We all play games. Even I, a PC hardcore centrist, had to finally accept that reality. Anyone who thinks themselves as more of a gamer than someone else based on what platform they play or what games they like is a fucking idiot. If you truly believe MS won the gamer market then be prepared to once again pay for the privilege of playing games on your choice of 'gamer' platform. The truth is you're just being marketed to using the 'this is more AUTHENTIC than that' spiel. It's 100% Juice all over again. Seriously, wake the fuck up.
The Gamecube didn't have any major gameplay gimmicks, which is obviously what we're discussing in this case, and a combination of price and motion controls are the reason the Wii was so successful. The Gamecube mainly only had Nintendo games, just like the Wii (in terms of successful releases). Did they make a profit on Gamecube? Yes. They still lost a significant portion of market share and user interest. Any Nintendo platform will make money because of the way they do business and their classic franchises, but that doesn't make them a success from a general consumer standpoint. During the N64 and Gamecube generations, consoles were referred to as Playstations or Xboxs, just like how the 2D generations were referred to as Nintendos. The public perception was that the Playstation brand was the future of games. That view is split now, because many people who have very limited experience with games are only personally familiar with the Wii, and it was fairly successful with people that play games often as well. However, among the people that have always and will always play video games, I think the 360 has a much greater attach rate. In terms of games, 360 owners play their systems more often and buy more games for their system than Wii owners. That's where that "market perception" comes from. Most people now only play their Wiis when Nintendo resurrects a franchise or at parties or on holidays. It is not used as often or for as wide a swath of games as the 360 or PS3.
If Nintendo franchises are the reason the Wii owns so much of the market share, than why didn't the Gamecube and the N64, or hell, even the Virtual Boy do as well as the Wii did? I love Nintendo, but Nintendo consoles for the last 3 generations have been "Nintendo" systems, and I play all my non "Nintendo" games on my 360. I think that's pretty common amongst people who identify as gamers (I know "anyone that plays games is a 'gamer'", but you understand the market that I'm referring to). For people that play games that don't see themselves as gamers, they play iPhone/iPad/Facebook games in their spare time, and play the Wii as a communal experience with friends and family. The people who play games like that specifically don't view themselves as gamers, even though they are. They have no interest in games like Halo or Half-Life or God of War and they probably never will. That type of gaming experience doesn't interest them. Most of them want games they can "pick up and play" to kill time or to share with other people. It's a different subset of games from narrative games and online multiplayer just like Reality TV and I Love the 80s is still television but tends to serve a different purpose than shows like The Sopranos and The West Wing. I watch a lot of dramas and procedurals but sitcoms have no interest for me. Some people don't want to invest in narratives or long-term franchises. Nintendo franchises have managed to avoid that because they are very user-friendly and they have a nostalgia factor aside from being very fun and family friendly. Nintendo fans will always buy Nintendo systems, and that's enough for them to sustain themselves, like it was with the Gamecube, but it's not enough to beat 360 and PS3 at their own game. The Wii beat those systems because of their price point and because motion controls provided a different experience than what had been previously provided. Those two aspects differentiated the console on a base level. If the next Nintendo system doesn't differentiate itself in some way, it will not be the most successful system just because of Nintendo games. Nintendo needs more than that. In a straight arms race like in the hypothetical created by the guy I was responding to, each system is on an even playing ground aside from first party and third party games. Nintendo definitely has the strongest first party, but third party games for the past few generations have not been as successful on Nintendo consoles as they have on their competitors, for a number of reasons, some of which aren't really fair. Nintendo's first party games would not be enough to give them the lead if the 360 and PS3 maintain their stranglehold on 3rd party games. I don't think most people will buy 3rd party games on a Wii2 if it's on par with the other two systems because they've already become accustomed to buying 3rd party games on the other two systems (in this case, usually 360 due to the more thriving online community of that system). Xbox Live and a lower price point turned out to be the keys to the 360s success over PS3, just like motion controls and a still lower price point were the keys to the Wii's success over both. I think most people whose only system is a Wii (and buy that I mean someone who owns a Wii but has never bought a PS2 or a Genesis or a 360) will not buy the Wii's successor unless there is a new differentiator. Most will either tire of motion controls or not see the point in an upgrade (much like how they didn't care that the Wii had inferior graphics) unless Nintendo has some big "gimmick" (and I don't mean that in a negative way) to make it stand out.
The guy said he wanted Nintendo to make a traditional system that was on par with the 360 and the PS3. I don't think that they would be able to take first place if they did that. Having a marginally better system come out now in direct competition with the 360 and the PS3 who already have a high install-base would prevent them from taking first place in "the next generation". Not only do those 2 systems already have a dedicated userbase (that would probably buy the next GTA or CoD on that system rather than buy a Wii2 to play the exact same game with maybe a higher resolution or something), but they would likely come out with new consoles in a year or two and then Nintendo would be underpowered and not have anything special in regards to their system to differentiate aside from their franchises. The Gamecube came out after the PS2 and was nearly on par with the Xbox. It got many of the same games as the other two consoles, and it had Nintendo franchises. Why did it fail if their franchises are the reason the Wii is a success? If they release a system next year that has nothing to differentiate itself from PS3 and 360 aside from Nintendo franchises, I asserted that they will not be able to take first place in the "console race" next generation. What in that statement do you disagree with, and why? I'd like to have an actual discussion with you, as I am a Nintendo fan and was perfectly happy with my Wii as a "Nintendo player" as a side console to my 360, so please try to avoid name-calling and condescension.
" technology moves too fast....i hate being broke -.- "
" @Empirepaintball said:
" The Wii was "next-gen" too... and we see how that turned out. "With the other consoles playing catchup? "
Im pretty sure the reason why this next console is being released is because the Wii was a a quick burn. Nintendo pretty much has to release a new console now because the support and interest in the Wii is pretty much dead. Hell I still feel I havent gotten my money's worth out of it.
Heres hoping the next system takes a step back and to the side with a more focused on classic controller gaming with some different ideas thrown in.
"Whenever we make a new game console, we've done it without throwing away buttons and the directional pad. The reason for that it's better to have them, because buttons and directional pads benefit gameplay response.Taking this into account, Nintendo isn't planning on completely ditching buttons, nor is Nintendo thinking of taking tablets as they are today and implementing them in a game console."
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment