Topic: Nintendo's current state

I keep going back to the notion that you don't need a different television to watch different channels. But video games are tied together hardware/software-wise. A unified console would go a long way, with content producers then being the main players. Nintendo would do quite well in such a scenario.

I don't think it will happen, mind you, but a major television network having to sell their own television and then fill programming would be insane. The big three console makers find themselves in that exact position. Ultimately, it's a distraction.

Personally, I'd love to see Nintendo continuing to innovate, but I think their home might be more on peripherals attached to a larger gaming device, however that might look. Whether that's with a competitor, PCs, or a new generation of smart TVs, I don't know. I don't think they can forge ahead with their own consoles forever. Especially with mobile devices taking such a huge bit out of their comfortable handheld market share.

Sales data can't show if an indie game sold someone a console. In your opinion indies can't be system sellers, that doesn't make it fact

They may be the only company in the world that actually can.

The problem with a unified console is creating an agreement between the major console makers and the publishers. That would be one heck of a transition.

I can certainly see some benefits out of it though

I think this is an interesting point. But at the same time, isn't PC gaming the equivalent of television in this respect? Or these new Steam boxes/machines, or whatever they're called? I'm not in any way a PC gamer, so I don't really know if I'm right. Please someone disabuse me if I'm mistaken. But it seems that PC gaming is you just have one universal device that can basically play anything (except console exclusives).

PS2 was successful because of brand recognintion, hype, and DVD in my opinion. Dreamcast looked like a sinking ship before it launched. PS2 was being hyped as a technical marvel in the media. DVD was just coming in to its own and historically is the most popular video media ever. Backwards compatibility and DVD playback ability were major factors for me when I purchased one a few months after launch. PS2 then also had a huge headstart over xbox and gamecube.

PS2 filled most gamers needs and once they already had one the desire for the other consoles was minimal and driven only if you felt you had to have the exclusive games on another system. PS2 marketed to a more mature gaming public and gamecube looked like a toy with a weird controller. Sunshine Metroid Prime and Windwaker were not as big a deal as Ocarina of time, Goldeneye, and Mario 64. Resident Evil ended up being only a timed exclusive. It didn't play DVD's and had weird mini discs. Sure it didn't play GTA either but the console war was long over by the time GTA 3 came out. The console war that gen was pretty much over before gamecube and xbox even launched.

Dreamcast looked absolutely perfect at launch. 60fps (Something the PAL region wanted since forever). Great Arcade ports at home there was literately nothing else to want.

Hmm I wonder what the market viability of a console that literally only had 60fps arcade ports would be.

I wonder if it would break 1 million sales in the first year.

PSX dominated because of 3 letters.....
F
M
V

By the time everyone realised they had been duped...it was too late. They were stuck with horrendous loading times while companies made a killing on a medium that cost them like 0.01p per disc

Full ****
Motion My
Video Video Games

Smart Phones are paving the way for it. I don't know how I feel about not having a dedicated gaming machine in the future. My Blu-Ray Player has Netflix, Hulu, and Pandora on it, will it have my game machine on it. I think once issues are ironed out with streaming games we will see Apps on these Smart devices that let us play these games. Who knows what the future holds.

Well, see @Vineleaf the problem with your analogy is that a television is nothing more than a screen. It doesn't actually do any of the program work. It just shows images. The actual program work comes from competing television companies (COX, DirecTV, Time Warner, AT&T, so on, so forth) and you might notice that those companies do actually go out of their way to make sure certain corporations are only broadcasting with them. They buy loyalty the same way most console devs do, trying to make sure certain games will only be on their system.

The problem with a unified console is manifold. For one, you WILL have to have competitors, partially because no one's going to sit back and let one company handle all of the hardware for gaming. It just won't happen. Once you have established that there won't be just one system, but at least two (usually three or four legit competitors and many other attempts off to the side), you then get into competition, where they start looking for ways to get a leg up on competitors. Exclusives and hardware specs will inevitably be the main fronts, since they're the easiest to secure by throwing more money at it. To make a long story short: as long as there is competition, there can be no unified system.

Also, I'm hearing a lot of people pipe up about mobile stuff again, but really, the mobile market doesn't take that big of a chunk out of the handheld market. It'd be like saying casual-use laptops are stealing business from Alienware laptops. You might not be entirely wrong, but you can see that it's not the same market and the pricing and quality options aren't even close to encroaching upon each other. There's plenty of room for the handheld market alongside the mobile market.

So the impossible happened and Rock Band 4 is something that'll exist and only on current gen. All DLC is being transferred over for free if you already own it on last gen so really everything falls on whether Nintendo impresses or disappoints at E3.

I agree, and perhaps I oversimplified my point. I should have framed it akin to something like NTSC/PAL standards for broadcast. That certain criteria for running media could be agreed. What they choose to do beyond that is on them.

I think it's the way the market changed so much with the DS in particular. Everyone seemed to have one, with the attraction of a touchscreen making them very accessible. Those same people—and I know many of them, as I've gotten a few extra DSs off of them since they didn't want them anymore—went to iPads and iPhones to play the games they wanted to play. Sure, they were never likely to pick up Etrian Odyssey on the DS, but the casual, bite-sized titles transferred to mobile quite well. And since they're buying phones and tablets to fit their lives anyhow, buying a separate game system was/is no longer a priority.

I'll still want one separate from other media devices, but that's because I play games to get away from people, not connect with them. I have a public enough job that I reach my social limit while at work. And I'm thinking portables here. Love me some dedicated handheld machines.

But even my dedicated gaming handheld machine is able to browse the internet and watch Netflix. I don't use it for those things but they are options. I actually have been wanting to get a Galaxy Tab just for gaming. It would be my dedicated gaming machine for a certain type of game/market while it isn't a dedicated machine. What is the point of having dedicated machines when every "smart" device is able to play the games you want (when streaming gameplay has the kinks worked out)

streaming gameplay seems like just as things are starting to get better why not introduce more lag people love it.

I'm not sure I like the idea of dedicated gaming devices going away either. The mobile market is pretty watered down and the target audience doesn't really care much about good gameplay. I can't imagine the full games that we currently buy on dedicated gaming devices being very profitable on mobile.

Dreamcast actually sold much better than the Wii U has. Wii U still hasn't quite caught Dreamcast in sales even though it has been out longer than the Dreamcast entire life span.

Kinda ignoring that the Dreamcast actually had one of the most successful console launches of all time. The Wii U now has much more momentum now than the Dreamcast did at the same point in its life.

Yeah because the Dreamcast was already dead at this point in its life.

The Wii U launch was not a disaster either, it just hasn't done well since.

Nintendo is in much better position to support a console than Sega was at the time. Sega had money issues and failed consoles in their recent past and basically folded up shop as soon as PS2 came out because they felt they could not compete

Dreamcast sold 10.6 million units in a bit over 2 years for it's entire life. Wii U hasn't reached 10 in well over 2 years.