Candy Crush is now more profitable than all of Nintendo. How does that make you feel

[Strider]

How does that make me feel?

 

Disappointed.

 

Not in Nintendo, not in King, but in people. Why? For making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (insert a few more dozen copies here) of an unoriginal game idea that insanely popular. A concept that been around for about 25 years, give or take? And then PAYING for it time and time again. *sigh*

 

There are times when I don't want to live on this planet any longer. This is one of them. heh

[Mooshi]

Absolutely disgusted that a half assed patent troll is defeating a giant that has some of the best ORIGINAL IPs in the gaming world.

 

Anyone who supports King and their patent trolling non-original in your face pandering to the most casual of casual - don't friend me. You have terrible tastes in entertainment.

 

DENOUNCED!

[HellaflushMcSwaggins]

It's because it takes actual brains to play a game on a nintendo console compared to any smartphone/tablet/potato-with-an-internet-connection-and-facebook

[Misanthrope]

It's because it takes actual brains to play a game on a nintendo console

 

Very brains, much advance, wow:

 

[HellaflushMcSwaggins]

Very brains, much advance, wow:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjhXQTK5ohQ

*cough* Real Brains *cough*

[WanderingFool]

I have very bad feelings about this.  To be honest, I will admit I have a personal bias against Microsoft and Apple, but my hatred towards King overwhelms those biases.  It is sad that a company that trademarks names, then buys out other trademarks when they realize their freshly trademarked name actually violates anothers name.  King destroyed the little companies, by intentionally ripping off games and then hiding behind legal loopholes, so I am mad that companies like this exist.

 

In comparing it to Nintendo's profits, well I still think that Nintendo is a good company in general, I wish they would just make games instead of consoles.

[JamieSinn]

It's more profitable than all of nintendo's games, Not overall.

[Rassilon]

Just remember that the whole reason there is a paradigm shift into new ways to interact with video games is due to Nintendo ushering in the wii. They pioneered in the first VR (and failed), which is being picked up by Occulus. They pioneered the use of motion sensors and succeeded. This is being copied by Sony and Microsoft. They move the industry forward and keep consoles as systems you can have fun with. Like REAL fun. Not some AAA overbudget under-produced, Hollywood voice acted, over the top nonsense we have today. When was the last time you could invite friends over and all play an awesome game in the living room with the PC/XBOX/PS3-4? Thats right, you cant. Because Nintendo are the only ones that hold that niche in the market. 

There wasn't a paradigm shift, there was an attempted paradigm shift, and people missed the point entirely. They didn't come up with the idea of VR, they were just the first ones (I think) to do it, and there were many in between them and Occulus. They didn't succed because of motion sensors, they succeeded because it was a cheap system that sold in more countries without as many restrictions and because it was really easy to pirate games for it. They haven't really moved the industry forward that much, they made the ever-so-loved motion control gimmick happen, and saying they're the only ones you can have fun with is just a fanboy thing to say.

"REAL fun. Not some AAA overbudget under-produced, Hollywood voice acted, over the top nonsense we have today." Does it suck to live in le wrong generation?

"When was the last time you could invite friends over and all play an awesome game in the living room with the PC/XBOX/PS3-4?" If you had friends with a console you would know it happens all the goddamn time. I had kids over a couple weeks ago and they played the crap out of Rayman. I went over a month ago to a friends and we played (I think) skate 3 and that London Olympics Game. You can try to be angsty about it and say they aren't fun, but when you look at it objectively, Mario Kart 7 or Super Mario Galaxy weren't really that fun either.

[Builder]

This makes me feel sad. How is this shit game more profitable than a whole effing giant company?

Nintendo's reluctance to roll with the punches and make some smartphone games will be the death of them.

 

Absolutely disgusted that a half assed patent troll is defeating a giant that has some of the best ORIGINAL IPs in the gaming world.

 

Anyone who supports King and their patent trolling non-original in your face pandering to the most casual of casual - don't friend me. You have terrible tastes in entertainment.

 

DENOUNCED!

You can have the best IP portfolio in the world and if you do nothing but sit on it whispering to yourself "it'll all be okay, it'll all be okay" while the world moves on it's questionable whether or not you deserved your position in the first place.

[Rassilon]

Making more affordable products, that work well, is a completely valid and consumer friendly business decision. As Microsoft is learning the hardway with the XBox One. They cheaped out on the internals, forced a Kinect on everyone, and still released the system for 25% more than the PS4. Sony on the other hand learned their lesson about bringing an overpriced product to market after the PS3 launch.

What "monopoly" does Nintendo have, or what "monopoly" have they ever had? A "monopoly" implies Nintendo forcibly prevented other competitors from entering or remaining in the market. They have never, ever, had such a "monopoly". They were not even close to first in the home console market, and they had less than a year in the market without significant competition before the Sega Master System was released. The Game Boy and Atari Lynx released in the same year, but the Lynx was 16-bit and color, compared to the 8-bit mono Game Boy. The Sega Game Gear released North America 2 years later, also boasting 16-bit graphics and a color screen.

Sega Genesis hit market 2 years before the Super Nintendo did. Sega also beat Nintendo to the 32-bit market with their 32X add-on. Nintendo remained stagnant in the console market for 10 years after the release of the Super Nintendo, until the GameCube was released in 2001. In that 10 years we saw Sega at least try to move forward with their Sega CD, but the release of the Playstation in 1995 was the kiss of death for the current offerings on the market. Sega tried again with the Dreamcast in 1999, but simply could not compete with the Playstation.

The GameCube was almost an after thought for most gamers because the PS2, which had already been on the market for a year, was a much more powerful system, and was the first system that could double as a DVD player. The original XBox also launched the same year as the GameCube. Over the years Nintendo didn't abandon the handheld market like so many other companies did, but at no time did they ever have a monopoly over anything or anyone.

As far as anti-consumer decisions. The recent issue with Youtube content creators is the only negative in that category. It's such a big deal because it's so out of character for Nintendo.

OK, let me rephrase, they've made two really affordable products recently, being the Wii and DS, and they're what made them money for the last five years. And bashing Nintendo isn't praising others so I have no idea what you're on about.

 

A monopoly doesn't imply you prevent competition, although you could look at it that way with them, it impies you're the only supplier for something, and for them it's handhelds. And it's right now. Why are you even cherry-picking examples of where they don't have a monopoly?

 

And here is a non-comprehensive list of anti-consumer decisions they have made:

-Forcing people to buy a goddamn tablet that ups the price of the system by at least 20%. It's not an answer to say 'but games use it' because games could use the Kinect too, it would still be a forced purchase. And everything it does could be done with a pasue button

-Keeping three year old games full price

-Not selling the digital game license, but just giving you one download so if anything goes wrong you lose it forever

-This whole 'exclusive and nothing but' thing they do even for old games

 

And there's a whole other list of things they did that I personally think are stupid like having two screens, but that's not really anti-consumer.

[nicehat]

There wasn't a paradigm shift, there was an attempted paradigm shift, and people missed the point entirely. They didn't come up with the idea of VR, they were just the first ones (I think) to do it, and there were many in between them and Occulus. They didn't succed because of motion sensors, they succeeded because it was a cheap system that sold in more countries without as many restrictions and because it was really easy to pirate games for it. They haven't really moved the industry forward that much, they made the ever-so-loved motion control gimmick happen, and saying they're the only ones you can have fun with is just a fanboy thing to say.

"REAL fun. Not some AAA overbudget under-produced, Hollywood voice acted, over the top nonsense we have today." Does it suck to live in le wrong generation?

"When was the last time you could invite friends over and all play an awesome game in the living room with the PC/XBOX/PS3-4?" If you had friends with a console you would know it happens all the goddamn time. I had kids over a couple weeks ago and they played the crap out of Rayman. I went over a month ago to a friends and we played (I think) skate 3 and that London Olympics Game. You can try to be angsty about it and say they aren't fun, but when you look at it objectively, Mario Kart 7 or Super Mario Galaxy weren't really that fun either.

 

Yes. It was a paradigm shift. Take the blinders off.

 

Everything that the wii did for the gaming industry was never done before in that capacity. The console form factor to the controllers to the way the novel way the system captured motion, gyroscopic controller integration, game to user interactions and accessibility. Compare that to what the PS3 and Xbox360 were doing before they were caught off guard by the wii launch and critical success and reception. Now look at the latter PS3/XB360 to the PS4/XB1. They followed Nintendo's lead and incorporated all of those innovations into their own designs. That whats called a paradigm shift. 

 

Yes it was a cheap system compared to its competitors, but so was the Gamecube, N64, SNES, and NES with theirs (SEGA, Panasonic, Sony etc etc). Did any of those consoles sell 101 million consoles world wide at the end of their life span? Answer is of course no, not even remotely close (the closest was the NES which sold about 60 million). It wasnt just the monetary value of the Wii, it was its value of the gaming experience. That is why they were so successful. Because of the experience they offered vs the competition. 

 

 Does it suck to live in le wrong generation?

 

No, it doesnt. How old are you, and since you too are still playing skate 3 and "that London olympics game", maybe I should ask you the same question? You didnt get my point about replay ability and value of a living room multiplayer experience and instead took it to mean that I somehow despise all current games. I was comparing it to COD, BF4, WatchDogs etc. These are overhyped AAA under-produced Hollywood inspired games that keep you engaged for a year max. 

 

And I have no idea what you are trying to say about playing on consoles all the time. XB/PS/PC are not things you can have 4 people play together on. If you are saying that it happens all the time with your kids, or at your friends house with one of those systems, good for you. Seriously, by telling me your situation with the 12 possible games that support in home multiplayer on your system of choice, it must make it true as a rule of thumb. Alot of people (>90%) will probably subjectively agree that Mario Kart 7 or Galaxy is alot more fun than any living room MP game available for the PC/PS/XB. By the way, the last Nintendo system I owned was an N64....Not a fanboy by a long shot. 

[totjup5]

How can a company based on ripping off another game be more profitable than Nintendo. I honestly hate King games. I hope they fade into the mist of bankruptcy in the next 10 years.

[jmaster299]

OK, let me rephrase, they've made two really affordable products recently, being the Wii and DS, and they're what made them money for the last five years. And bashing Nintendo isn't praising others so I have no idea what you're on about.

 

A monopoly doesn't imply you prevent competition, although you could look at it that way with them, it impies you're the only supplier for something, and for them it's handhelds. And it's right now. Why are you even cherry-picking examples of where they don't have a monopoly?

 

And here is a non-comprehensive list of anti-consumer decisions they have made:

-Forcing people to buy a goddamn tablet that ups the price of the system by at least 20%. It's not an answer to say 'but games use it' because games could use the Kinect too, it would still be a forced purchase. And everything it does could be done with a pasue button

-Keeping three year old games full price

-Not selling the digital game license, but just giving you one download so if anything goes wrong you lose it forever

-This whole 'exclusive and nothing but' thing they do even for old games

 

And there's a whole other list of things they did that I personally think are stupid like having two screens, but that's not really anti-consumer.

"Cherry Picking examples?" I covered the entire history of in home gaming since the launch of the NES. How in the hell have I "cherry picked" anything? Nintendo has NEVER had a monopoly in the history of planet Earth. There has always been competition and they have never stifled or in any way prevented that competition from being successful. It is not their fault that other companies wilfully chose to ignore the handheld market and it's not their fault that Sony failed to implement their own devices to challenge the Nintendo DS and 3DS.

Even Sony is not entirely at fault for their own failure, but Nintendo is not to blame. Sony chose to focus on an all in one entertainment suite. The Sony PSP supporting movies, which required a new format that was not compatible with anything else, cost Sony unknown millions of dollars in costs and lost revenue right at the time that digital media was becoming common place on the market. The rise of the iPod, and eventually the smartphone, is what lead to the demise of the PSP and PS Vita. The Nintendo DS and 3DS were and remain popular because Nintendo made the smart choice to focus solely on gaming. Which allowed Nintendo to provide a gaming experience that was better than mobile gaming, but also allowed them to offer their products at a price point that consumers could still afford along with their iPod or smartphone purchase. 

Now lets examine the supposedly "anti-consumer" decisions of Nintendo.

The Wii-U tablet: The way you make your claim falsely accuses Nintendo of including a piece of hardware for no other reason than to drive up the cost of the system. That tablet is dirt cheap, and in no way is making the Wii-U an overpriced system as you are trying to claim. Compare that to Microsoft, who spend over $100 million dollars developing the XBox One controller. The controller is in no way different or an improvement over the 360 controller, yet they wasted an asinine amount of money developing it. Same goes for the design of the system case. They have not had the balls to tell us how much money they wasted on it, but there was supposedly over 100 different designs, and yet they settled on a gigantic brick.

Keeping three year old games at full price: That's called business 101. If a product remains popular, you do not cut the price on it. It's only "anti-consumer" to refuse to cut the price when a product stops selling well. Every CoD game is an example of that, with the first Modern Warfare still being listed for $19.99 a full 8.5 years after release. Yes it's a drop from the original price, but it's still an unreasonable price point for a nearly 9 year old game that has had no less than 6 more releases in the franchise since then.

Not selling the digital game license, but just giving you one download so if anything goes wrong you lose it forever: First off, no company on the planet sells the license to any game. Every single ToS or EULA states that you are only being granted a limited access to a rental of that license. Access that can be revoked at any time for a thousand different reasons. As far as only being able to download a title once, per the Nintendo Support Site that is not true. I only looked it up for the Wii U, but I easily found step by step instructions on how to redownload a previous purchase. 

 

Is this the first time downloading content to this system?

Yes    •   No

Is this the first time the title has been downloaded?

Yes    •   No

What to Do:

1. From the Wii U Menu, select the Nintendo eShop icon and tap "Open."
2. Select "Menu" or press the Y button.
3. Select "Profile."
4. Select "Your Downloads" and the type of content being redownloaded.
5. Tap "Download Again."
   • If the selected content has a rating, it will be displayed on the screen. Select "Next" to continue.
6. Tap "Download Again."

        The download will begin automatically. Select "Continue" to return to the Nintendo eShop Menu.

​

This whole 'exclusive and nothing but' thing they do even for old games: You'll need to explain that rambling nonsense, as it makes no sense. You are beyond help if you are crying about game remaining exclusive with in the Nintendo marketplace, meaning you can't download Nintendo games on your XBox or other platform. That is no different than how MS or Sony do business.

[Misanthrope]

Even Sony is not entirely at fault for their own failure, but Nintendo is not to blame.

No, just no.

 

Sony chose to focus on an all in one entertainment suite. The Sony PSP supporting movies, which required a new format that was not compatible with anything else, cost Sony unknown millions of dollars in costs and lost revenue right at the time that digital media was becoming common place on the market. The rise of the iPod, and eventually the smartphone, is what lead to the demise of the PSP and PS Vita. The Nintendo DS and 3DS were and remain popular because Nintendo made the smart choice to focus solely on gaming. Which allowed Nintendo to provide a gaming experience that was better than mobile gaming, but also allowed them to offer their products at a price point that consumers could still afford along with their iPod or smartphone purchase.

Debatable: we wouldn't be talking about a mostly mobile title surpassing them otherwise. I don't disagree about the past but the DS was a long time ago.

 

Now lets examine the supposedly "anti-consumer" decisions of Nintendo.

The Wii-U tablet: The way you make your claim falsely accuses Nintendo of including a piece of hardware for no other reason than to drive up the cost of the system. That tablet is dirt cheap, and in no way is making the Wii-U an overpriced system as you are trying to claim. Compare that to Microsoft, who spend over $100 million dollars developing the XBox One controller. The controller is in no way different or an improvement over the 360 controller, yet they wasted an asinine amount of money developing it. Same goes for the design of the system case. They have not had the balls to tell us how much money they wasted on it, but there was supposedly over 100 different designs, and yet they settled on a gigantic brick.

1) Anything that's unnecessary and unwanted is hurting the price tag: even if it's only a little or not as much it still hurts the price tag simply because a normal controller it's still better and cheaper and doesn't suffers from battery life issues or just plain "what the fuck do I do with this thing" syndrome developers run into.

2) You lose your ability to criticize other controllers when the stupid tablet is so damn crappy

3) You lose your ability to criticize other hardware designs when yours is even slower and shittier than the xbone.

4) Before you take issue with 3 and 4: No this are not really important for the oh so important, supposedly innovative (but painfully repetitive and stagnated) gameplay Nintendo goes for, I merely bring this points up because you had the audacity to try to criticize someone else when the Wii U is severely lacking even compared to the pathetic xbone.

 

Keeping three year old games at full price: That's called business 101. If a product remains popular, you do not cut the price on it. It's only "anti-consumer" to refuse to cut the price when a product stops selling well. Every CoD game is an example of that, with the first Modern Warfare still being listed for $19.99 a full 8.5 years after release. Yes it's a drop from the original price, but it's still an unreasonable price point for a nearly 9 year old game that has had no less than 6 more releases in the franchise since then.

Re: Valve has proven this to be incorrect with Steam Sales, titles that are already past launch greatly benefit from even massive 75% off discounts simply because of the enormous amount of volume they move. What you describe is outdated, obsolete thinking, worthy of a company that held on to Cartridges past their usefulness as well as the slowest transition into proper online features ever. In context to only other console manufacturers perhaps, but that isn't a fair context considering just how fucking greedy they all are with their pre-orders, day one on disc DLC, hijacked content, microtransactions, season passes, etc. By those standards Nintendo has it better. But that's not our measuring stick, around here we actually do know better: Steam, gog.com, etc.

This whole 'exclusive and nothing but' thing they do even for old games: You'll need to explain that rambling nonsense, as it makes no sense. You are beyond help if you are crying about game remaining exclusive with in the Nintendo marketplace, meaning you can't download Nintendo games on your XBox or other platform. That is no different than how MS or Sony do business.

See above: we know better and compare to a much higher standard: Digital distribution on the PC.

[Agons]

I.... I..... *Looks at pokiemon posters blinking back the tears*  I just died, a little inside....

[jmaster299]

No, just no.

 

Debatable: we wouldn't be talking about a mostly mobile title surpassing them otherwise. I don't disagree about the past but the DS was a long time ago.

 

1) Anything that's unnecessary and unwanted is hurting the price tag: even if it's only a little or not as much it still hurts the price tag simply because a normal controller it's still better and cheaper and doesn't suffers from battery life issues or just plain "what the fuck do I do with this thing" syndrome developers run into.

2) You lose your ability to criticize other controllers when the stupid tablet is so damn crappy

3) You lose your ability to criticize other hardware designs when yours is even slower and shittier than the xbone.

4) Before you take issue with 3 and 4: No this are not really important for the oh so important, supposedly innovative (but painfully repetitive and stagnated) gameplay Nintendo goes for, I merely bring this points up because you had the audacity to try to criticize someone else when the Wii U is severely lacking even compared to the pathetic xbone.

 

Re: Valve has proven this to be incorrect with Steam Sales, titles that are already past launch greatly benefit from even massive 75% off discounts simply because of the enormous amount of volume they move. What you describe is outdated, obsolete thinking, worthy of a company that held on to Cartridges past their usefulness as well as the slowest transition into proper online features ever. In context to only other console manufacturers perhaps, but that isn't a fair context considering just how fucking greedy they all are with their pre-orders, day one on disc DLC, hijacked content, microtransactions, season passes, etc. By those standards Nintendo has it better. But that's not our measuring stick, around here we actually do know better: Steam, gog.com, etc.

See above: we know better and compare to a much higher standard: Digital distribution on the PC.

"No, just no" on what? I have proven you wrong, you're refusal to accept that is not proof that you are right. It is in no way Nintendo's fault that Sony failed with the PSP and Vita. Nintendo made better choices that lead to the DS and 3DS being successful, but Sony could have been equally successful if not for their own mistakes.

Nintendo may have misjudged with the tablet, but it was in no way an "anti-consumer" decision like you are trying to claim. The success of the tablet market is what drove Nintendo to try and adopt a tablet oriented controller for the Wii U. But just because customers end up not liking a decision does not make that decision "anti-consumer". Microsoft pushing the Kinect on everyone how ever was an anti-consumer decision. There was no evidence that showed that Microsoft's Xbox customer base wanted or needed the Kinect. But by forcing the Kinect on everyone it lead to Microsoft cheaping out on the internal hardware in comparison to their direct rival at Sony and put a $100 premium on their console over their direct rival at Sony. The tablet controller may had turned out to be a bad decision, but it was in no way an anti-consumer decision.

But I'm going to stop my break down there as you have given no direct counterpoint to any of the facts I have presented. All you do is present childish arguments of "well you can't call a different product because I feel your product is worse". I in no way support the Wii U or think that it's a good choice for gamers. But I am not so arrogant as to piss and moan about Nintendo being the worst company in history based off nothing more than uneducated opinions, like you have done. You obviously know nothing about Nintendo or the video game industry in general. Every comment you have made is nothing more than misdirected personal hate against a company that you know nothing about.

Also, no console on the market has a digital distribution system that is even remotely close to being able to rival the PC market, and we likely never will. You can not, and should not, ever try and hold any console to the same standards as PC. There would not be such totally different markets if they did not each cater to a completely different consumer. Console consumers have become accustom to several decades of being allowed to buy, sell, rented and trade their games with anyone they want, when no such market has ever existed for PCs. There are a few examples, but ever since the broad adoption of the internet, the vast majority PC games have had some form DRM in place to prevent the sharing or reselling of PC games. That DRM is what drove the digital distribution market, it no longer mattered that you didn't have a physical disc because you would never be able to sell or trade that disc anyways. Sure you could give that disc to someone, but it was useless unless that person paid for their own copy of the game. 

The console market still rejects such DRM, and that is why their digital distribution system is so weak. At the same time, it provides companies the one possible chance they have to fight back against the trading and reselling of video games. Nintendo is no different than Microsoft or Sony by including restrictions in their digital marketplace, but as I proved, you absolutely can redownload purchases made in the Nintendo e-Shop.

[Misanthrope]

"No, just no" on what?

That entire discussion about Sony being to blame but not Nintendo. Both made decisions, both are accountable for the results, equally so.

Nintendo may have misjudged with the tablet, but it was in no way an "anti-consumer" decision like you are trying to claim. The success of the tablet market is what drove Nintendo to try and adopt a tablet oriented controller for the Wii U.

I don't think it's maliciously intentional I'll give you that much. But the fact that you bring up that other point on the popularity of tablets is actually a rather good point: Did they really panic and tried to just copy the tablets? Or was it that motion controls were always a gimmick and Nintendo has always been into gimmicks? That one just happened to catch up, briefly.

But I'm going to stop my break down there as you have given no direct counterpoint to any of the facts I have presented. All you do is present childish arguments of "well you can't call a different product because I feel your product is worse". I in no way support the Wii U or think that it's a good choice for gamers. But I am not so arrogant as to piss and moan about Nintendo being the worst company in history based off nothing more than uneducated opinions, like you have done. You obviously know nothing about Nintendo or the video game industry in general. Every comment you have made is nothing more than misdirected personal hate against a company that you know nothing about.

Stop confusing me with the poster you originally replied to: My opinions on Nintendo are not "uneducated" and here's a hint to that: Like you said I didn't directly offered a counterpoint, I just thought that the way you presented your remarks in such an adversary fashion with direct comparisons was shitty and hurts your overall points

Also, no console on the market has a digital distribution system that is even remotely close to being able to rival the PC market, and we likely never will. You can not, and should not, ever try and hold any console to the same standards as PC.

Incorrect: The fact that PC gaming is available absolutely entitles me and anyone to make direct comparisons. Yes the market is very different and mostly for the better: The differences only benefit a very small group of publishers but overall hurt the entire gaming industry with unsustainable practices that could bring about another videogame crash, so fat chance: I will continue to directly compare any and all consoles to PC gaming, for their own fucking sake.

[TheProfosist]

wow so I work for a day and shit gets real in this thread.

I think the gamepad was a way to bring tablet market as well as DS style gameplay over to the console.

I think nintendo's systems is decent and have gotten all my games though it mostly for convergence and that on the Wii u I get 10% back in wii shop $. they do have sales as downloads. Also depending on the game you can get it earlier, usually when it released in japan, and certain games are cheaper like Super Luigi U which is considered a DLC not a whole game.

Now the downsides. The main issue I have is that the games are tied to that user on that device and that there is no nintendo wide user still. They did add nintendo network id to 3DS which was good but club nintendo is still separate as is the 10% back digital promotion I talk about and you have to link them all together. The only way to prove you bought a game is to pull up a receipt in the gamepad. I actually got screwed by this with my original Wii as a bought a new one and couldnt prove I own $200+ of virtual consoles games. Now i just take some quick pics of the gamepad on my phone each time I buy something just in case What they need to do is just make the Nintendo Network ID basically like a XBL account and just use it for everything instead of linking to it. Also they have my email, just email me the damned receipt and possibly keep a record somewhere online. Is that really so hard?

[jmaster299]

That entire discussion about Sony being to blame but not Nintendo. Both made decisions, both are accountable for the results, equally so.

I don't think it's maliciously intentional I'll give you that much. But the fact that you bring up that other point on the popularity of tablets is actually a rather good point: Did they really panic and tried to just copy the tablets? Or was it that motion controls were always a gimmick and Nintendo has always been into gimmicks? That one just happened to catch up, briefly.

Stop confusing me with the poster you originally replied to: My opinions on Nintendo are not "uneducated" and here's a hint to that: Like you said I didn't directly offered a counterpoint, I just thought that the way you presented your remarks in such an adversary fashion with direct comparisons was shitty and hurts your overall points

Incorrect: The fact that PC gaming is available absolutely entitles me and anyone to make direct comparisons. Yes the market is very different and mostly for the better: The differences only benefit a very small group of publishers but overall hurt the entire gaming industry with unsustainable practices that could bring about another videogame crash, so fat chance: I will continue to directly compare any and all consoles to PC gaming, for their own fucking sake.

You keep blaming Nintendo for the failure of the PSP and Vita, yet you can't provide a single example. Nintendo offering a better product in no way can be used to assign blame to Nintendo for Sony's failure, or the failure of any other company for that matter. So, until you can provide one example of how Nintendo broke some law or in some way bullied retailers or consumers into not supporting a competing platform, you can simply stop posting. I have destroyed every single argument you have made. I'm done.

[Misanthrope]

You keep blaming Nintendo for the failure of the PSP and Vita

Do I? I said they're both to blame, if that wasn't clear enough I mean they're both to blame for their individual failures, not each others.

[Rassilon]

"Cherry Picking examples?" I covered the entire history of in home gaming since the launch of the NES. How in the hell have I "cherry picked" anything? Nintendo has NEVER had a monopoly in the history of planet Earth. There has always been competition and they have never stifled or in any way prevented that competition from being successful. It is not their fault that other companies wilfully chose to ignore the handheld market and it's not their fault that Sony failed to implement their own devices to challenge the Nintendo DS and 3DS.

......

 

 

That is no different than how MS or Sony do business.

Yes you were cherry-picking examples. You're assuming that Nintendo doesn't do anything but home consoles. What do you call that? And ypu're also assuming that I said it was a bad thing, which I didn't. I said that's one of the thigns I know them for. That's one of the only reasons they're relevant now.

 

And the whole system itself is dirt cheap to produce. Nintendo might be the only company that actually sells every unit on a profit, are you actually arguing that the tablet costs less that 20%(~$40-$50) of the total system cost? Yes, that's anti-consumer. It's their and it doesn't need to be there. Because it's their and doesn't need to be, the WiiU is overpriced. Where in that thought process have I lost you? And (a) You think that criticizing one company is defending another for some reason, and that's not what I'm doing, ( B) Have you used either or Xbox controller? Because saying that it's not different is just stupid.

 

Keeping games full price isn't business, that's being a greedy corporation. Oh I'm sure they're dealing with an enormous supply deficit on the game units that cost $0.5 to produce, I'm sure they have to keep up with the huge demand for Mario Bros. Wii, so that's why they keep it at $50. The CoD example, and don't take this as me defending CoD by any stretch, makes a lot more sense. There's the cost to produce the game, the amount you have to give to a retailer, and the amount you have to spend on it. $20 is steep, but it's a hell of a lot more reasonable for a game from 2011. And then their's the companies that don't do that at all. Battlefield 1942 is just free, the Batman Arkham Games regularly drop to $7, the Just Cause games drop to $2 every sale. Keeping them at regular price the other times of the year is probably just a contract they have to maintain with retailers.

 

Sell was the wrong term. I should have said 'gives'. Companies generally give you a license to a game with limited rights, or they're just GOG. The way to get games back is good when you try it sometimes, but there are documented cases of it just not working.

 

You keep assuming I'm defending Sony or MS. Why? Exclusivity, in my humble opinion is bad. End of story. Even if it's a PC exclusive, exclusivity beyond the idea of the platform you're trying to puclish on being unreasonable is bad.

[Rassilon]

Yes. It was a paradigm shift. Take the blinders off.

 

Everything that the wii did for the gaming industry was never done before in that capacity. The console form factor to the controllers to the way the novel way the system captured motion, gyroscopic controller integration, game to user interactions and accessibility. Compare that to what the PS3 and Xbox360 were doing before they were caught off guard by the wii launch and critical success and reception. Now look at the latter PS3/XB360 to the PS4/XB1. They followed Nintendo's lead and incorporated all of those innovations into their own designs. That whats called a paradigm shift. 

 

Yes it was a cheap system compared to its competitors, but so was the Gamecube, N64, SNES, and NES with theirs (SEGA, Panasonic, Sony etc etc). Did any of those consoles sell 101 million consoles world wide at the end of their life span? Answer is of course no, not even remotely close (the closest was the NES which sold about 60 million). It wasnt just the monetary value of the Wii, it was its value of the gaming experience. That is why they were so successful. Because of the experience they offered vs the competition. 

 

 Does it suck to live in le wrong generation?

 

No, it doesnt. How old are you, and since you too are still playing skate 3 and "that London olympics game", maybe I should ask you the same question? You didnt get my point about replay ability and value of a living room multiplayer experience and instead took it to mean that I somehow despise all current games. I was comparing it to COD, BF4, WatchDogs etc. These are overhyped AAA under-produced Hollywood inspired games that keep you engaged for a year max. 

 

And I have no idea what you are trying to say about playing on consoles all the time. XB/PS/PC are not things you can have 4 people play together on. If you are saying that it happens all the time with your kids, or at your friends house with one of those systems, good for you. Seriously, by telling me your situation with the 12 possible games that support in home multiplayer on your system of choice, it must make it true as a rule of thumb. Alot of people (>90%) will probably subjectively agree that Mario Kart 7 or Galaxy is alot more fun than any living room MP game available for the PC/PS/XB. By the way, the last Nintendo system I owned was an N64....Not a fanboy by a long shot. 

"In that capacity" is purely objective. I beleive the Wii won because it was available officially in more countries, hackable to the max, and border jumped like crazy. I'm not saying the 'wow' factor didn't help, It for sure started the surge, but being able to pirate games on it made it fly. That's the same reason the Xbox 360 wasn't pumelled, to me.

 

How are you calling me young and defending playing Mario Kart Wii* (Sorry, I thought 7 was the one on the wii I played and 100%'d). These games are genuinely fun, and there is a lot of fun to be had in BF and CoD once you get past the stigma that they're all the same game. Not as much as the nintendo exclusives, there are other games to compete with those, but there is replayability. I don't see how Mario Kart is going to keep you engaged for more than a year, because after that you've probably gotten everything there is to get.

 

Those twelve games are instantly more than the (what?) 10 exclusives that Nintendo has that I can name. Not my kids, we had a party and they just came over and played Rayman, but the point sticks. And I will defend that Nintendo isn't some kind of king of Local MP. There are thousands of devs and saying that Nintendo can do it better because they've been doing it for a while must feel at least wierd to say.

[Mooshi]

The choice is obvious. Nintendo should bow out of the home console market and do two things. One is to continue its dominance in the handheld department because lets face it, titles like Pokemon alone is enough to keep interest. The second thing they should do is form a joint venture with Valve and start releasing Nintendo IPs on Steam. Imagine this, playing Nintendo games on glorious PC natively! All Nintendo would have to do is work with Valve to co-develop the Steam controller for better ergonomics and boom. Suddenly Nintendo just pimp slapped King down to planet Earth.

 

Wii fit, Wii sports, get lost. you're part of the reason Nintendo is mocked. Same goes for the "Miis" I'm perfectly fine with Metroid, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon to name a few. Cut the excess fat (aka gimmicks) Nintendo, and join the PC side.