Please, no logic in the forums. We're not equipped to handle it here. We appreciate your cooperation.
Cool. In that case, Nintendo is going to win the war by creating the most expensive handheld ever made. The total cost of research, development, parts, and manufacturing will be $200, but it will retail for $1,000,000,000,000,000. Exactly one person will buy it, but that person will also throw money at Nintendo and 3rd parties to make games for him or her.
Moco Loco If you find yourself spiritually drifting (as I was for far too many years), remember that Jesus can and will walk across the water to reach you and bring you back to shore.
Please, no logic in the forums. We're not equipped to handle it here. We appreciate your cooperation.
Cool. In that case, Nintendo is going to win the war by creating the most expensive handheld ever made. The total cost of research, development, parts, and manufacturing will be $200, but it will retail for $1,000,000,000,000,000. Exactly one person will buy it, but that person will also throw money at Nintendo and 3rd parties to make games for him or her.
Heck one person is enough for amazing results!
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
I don't get why we make the comparison they are really not the same thing.
Exactly. Smartphones and handhelds can coexist. Look at the transportation industry. We have many different options: car boat bicycle motorcycle plane train
And here's the kicker: VIDEO GAMES ARE A NICHE PRODUCT! They have always been a niche product. The reason smartphone games are selling more is because pretty much everyone has a phone. Handhelds cater to a specific market: people who travel a lot, and kids.
Casual gamers can't be relied on, they go to whatever is trendy at the time. And video games have always relied on trends (polygons, "3-D", analog controls, FPS, platformers in the 90's, etc.), it's the "core" gamers who have kept this industry afloat all these years, the ones that buy game systems every 5/6 years and multitudes of software.
ok then Gamers will never buy an MP3 or Camera again since 3DS is both
Digitaloggery 3DS FC: Otaku1 WiiU: 013017970991 Nintendo of Japan niconico community is full of kawaii! Must finish my backlagg or at least get close this year W...
Casual gamers can't be relied on, they go to whatever is trendy at the time.
Which is exactly what I said, and exactly why Nintendo (and to a lesser extent, Sony) is now not selling as many consoles as they were previously - the smartphone market is having an impact on their businesses.
For the second time - go back and read my post. Nintendo/ Sony might not be at "war" with Apple and Android, but the smartphones is a significant - indirect - reason for a downturn in handheld console sales.
Or to put it another way for you: The Wii and DS would have flopped if they relied on the "core" gamers. Think about the ramifications of that for a moment.
Casual gamers can't be relied on, they go to whatever is trendy at the time.
Which is exactly what I said, and exactly why Nintendo (and to a lesser extent, Sony) is now not selling as many consoles as they were previously - the smartphone market is having an impact on their businesses.
For the second time - go back and read my post. Nintendo/ Sony might not be at "war" with Apple and Android, but the smartphones is a significant - indirect - reason for a downturn in handheld console sales.
Or to put it another way for you: The Wii and DS would have flopped if they relied on the "core" gamers. Think about the ramifications of that for a moment.
Pretty much every single game console has relied on "core" gamers. PS1, PS2, Wii, and DS were an exception. The early days of the video game industry was simply casual fluff. Remember the arcade games from the 1970's - 1980's? The Atari 2600, Colecovision, Intellevision, etc.? The entire gaming industry started out as casual fare. It wasn't until Nintendo came along with the NES that gaming found it's niche. Then, with every subsequent system, the industry got bigger and more ambitious, and here we are today.
If it wasn't for core gamers, the ones who constantly purchase game systems and software, the industry would be nowhere as big as it is today. You can't compare the smartphone market to dedicated game systems. Smartphones are made for communication, with gaming as an extra feature. Cell phones have been around for decades, nearly everyone has one now. And like I said before, game systems have always been marketed to a particular market. Casual gamers don't care about PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, etc. They just view games as a mindless form of time-wasting.
Would Capcom, Konami, EA, Namco, Sega, etc. all be as big as they are if they just made throwaway casual games? I doubt it.
So going by your logic, do you think the games found on websites like Facebook and Pogo are going to change everything, and gaming will forever be a casual-ridden industry? No more handhelds, no more consoles, everything will be on Facebook and Pogo.com. This will never happen, since there is so much money in dedicated gaming systems. I highly doubt they will go away and be replaced by smartphone and internet games. If dedicated gaming systems ARE fading away, then maybe we should just all go back to PC gaming.
nah, you're not listening. I never said there can't be two markets. What can't happen is Nintendo see the same level of success it did with the DS and Wii. It's incapable of competing with smartphones and Zynga.
Which brings me back to the same point I keep making that social games and smartphones have had an indirect impact on Nintendo sales. It's not that people go out and buy an iPhone instead of a 3DS, it's that for a lot of people a 3DS is overkill for the kind of gaming experience they're looking at. Previously they would have bought a DS for Nintendogs or Brain Training, and a Wii for Wii Fit and Wii Sports. They don't need to any more.
So Nintendo's sales figures drop. It's an indirect war, but there's attrition nonetheless.
Of course by now I feel like a broken record, and I'm running our of ways to try and explain this really simple process to you. To tl;dr it right down to a stupid sound byte: iPhone means 3DS won't sell as good as DS.
nah, you're not listening. I never said there can't be two markets. What can't happen is Nintendo see the same level of success it did with the DS and Wii. It's incapable of competing with smartphones and Zynga.
Which brings me back to the same point I keep making that social games and smartphones have had an indirect impact on Nintendo sales. It's not that people go out and buy an iPhone instead of a 3DS, it's that for a lot of people a 3DS is overkill for the kind of gaming experience they're looking at. Previously they would have bought a DS for Nintendogs or Brain Training, and a Wii for Wii Fit and Wii Sports. They don't need to any more.
So Nintendo's sales figures drop. It's an indirect war, but there's attrition nonetheless.
Of course by now I feel like a broken record, and I'm running our of ways to try and explain this really simple process to you. To tl;dr it right down to a stupid sound byte: iPhone means 3DS won't sell as good as DS.
But I bet there's still a market for little kids and old people who don't care for smart phones
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
I don't care who sells the best. This whole console war is pointless. It's just as stupid as the terms "casual" and "core".
Where did this obsession over console sales come from? Does anyone care if Ford sells more cars than Chrysler? Does anyone care if Samsung has the biggest marketshare for TVs? Does anyone care if Whirlpool sells more washers than Maytag? Does anyone care if Sony sells more digital cameras than Canon? Does anyone care if Warner Bros. has a bigger box-office hit than Universal?
To the general public, sales data is pointless. I don't care about it. I just buy the stuff that I want. For example: I recently bought a Samsung laptop. It had the features I wanted, and I don't care if HP or Dell sell more of them.
And another thing: In order to get more sales, you need games. If developers just made games for all platforms, treating them all equally instead of having this industry bias, then all consoles would have good sales. I understand that developers don't like to develop for certain platforms if they don't have much marketshare, but the 3DS has only been out for about 5 months. It's ridiculous that developers are being so weary about the 3DS. Nintendo is solving the price issue, now it's up to developers to supply the games so people actually buy the damn thing!
And another thing: In order to get more sales, you need games. If developers just made games for all platforms, treating them all equally instead of having this industry bias, then all consoles would have good sales. I understand that developers don't like to develop for certain platforms if they don't have much marketshare, but the 3DS has only been out for about 5 months. It's ridiculous that developers are being so weary about the 3DS. Nintendo is solving the price issue, now it's up to developers to supply the games so people actually buy the damn thing!
#1 Er...wouldn't they all go bankrupt before they could build a reputation, let alone release games? It would also take longer for games to be produced. You can't possibly support 4 home consoles or 2-4 handhelds, or Android+iOS+other smartphones for every game from the get-go without running a deficit, unless you're a reasonably established company releasing a reasonably established game. Sega can afford to put Sonic Generations all over the place, but WayForward might need the money from Mighty Flip Champs on DSiWare to be able to get it out on the PSP and iOS in the first place.
Even if you could, the games would have to be different because of the drastically different technology, and that's certainly no fault of the third parties. The individual features of each console might need to be ignored due to time restraints and Wii/DS games might be especially bland since they have weaker tech and devlopers wouldn't have the time to pour innovation into their 5-7+ games.
Next, let's say (somehow) every developer were able to release every game on every console. Consumers don't buy every console equally, and different consoles have different consumers with different interests. The sales of "Some Cool New Game: Revolution" might be quite high on PS3, decent on Wii, and horrendous on 360 and PC. Even with high numbers on the PS3 and cutting even on the Wii, that might not be enough to outweigh what they lost by releasing the game on 360 and PC. Every single game would need to have a broad appeal or incredible luck to succeed.
What you're proposing is a fantasy that would limit innovation and leave the games business to behemoths and gambling companies. Many indies would go extinct because consumer interest is simply not equal across the board.
#2 There's no need for them to jump onto the development train for 3DS if people aren't buying it yet. They can churn a profit on other consoles until the 3DS becomes more established. There's no real incentive to go after a small userbase. Even if your title is a console seller, the console's sales aren't going in your pocket. Why not put your console-selling game on a console with millions and millions more consumers? This is why games like Dragon Quest are released on the most popular console and don't come at launch.
And another thing: In order to get more sales, you need games. If developers just made games for all platforms, treating them all equally instead of having this industry bias, then all consoles would have good sales. I understand that developers don't like to develop for certain platforms if they don't have much marketshare, but the 3DS has only been out for about 5 months. It's ridiculous that developers are being so weary about the 3DS. Nintendo is solving the price issue, now it's up to developers to supply the games so people actually buy the damn thing!
#1 Er...wouldn't they all go bankrupt before they could build a reputation, let alone release games? It would also take longer for games to be produced. You can't possibly support 4 home consoles or 2-4 handhelds, or Android+iOS+other smartphones for every game from the get-go without running a deficit, unless you're a reasonably established company releasing a reasonably established game. Sega can afford to put Sonic Generations all over the place, but WayForward might need the money from Mighty Flip Champs on DSiWare to be able to get it out on the PSP and iOS in the first place.
Even if you could, the games would have to be different because of the drastically different technology, and that's certainly no fault of the third parties. The individual features of each console might need to be ignored due to time restraints and Wii/DS games might be especially bland since they have weaker tech and devlopers wouldn't have the time to pour innovation into their 5-7+ games.
Next, let's say (somehow) every developer were able to release every game on every console. Consumers don't buy every console equally, and different consoles have different consumers with different interests. The sales of "Some Cool New Game: Revolution" might be quite high on PS3, decent on Wii, and horrendous on 360 and PC. Even with high numbers on the PS3 and cutting even on the Wii, that might not be enough to outweigh what they lost by releasing the game on 360 and PC. Every single game would need to have a broad appeal or incredible luck to succeed.
What you're proposing is a fantasy that would limit innovation and leave the games business to behemoths and gambling companies. Many indies would go extinct because consumer interest is simply not equal across the board.
#2 There's no need for them to jump onto the development train for 3DS if people aren't buying it yet. They can churn a profit on other consoles until the 3DS becomes more established. There's no real incentive to go after a small userbase. Even if your title is a console seller, the console's sales aren't going in your pocket. Why not put your console-selling game on a console with millions and millions more consumers? This is why games like Dragon Quest are released on the most popular console and don't come at launch.
#1 Er...wouldn't they all go bankrupt before they could build a reputation, let alone release games? It would also take longer for games to be produced. You can't possibly support 4 home consoles or 2-4 handhelds, or Android+iOS+other smartphones for every game from the get-go without running a deficit, unless you're a reasonably established company releasing a reasonably established game. Sega can afford to put Sonic Generations all over the place, but WayForward might need the money from Mighty Flip Champs on DSiWare to be able to get it out on the PSP and iOS in the first place.
Even if you could, the games would have to be different because of the drastically different technology, and that's certainly no fault of the third parties. The individual features of each console might need to be ignored due to time restraints and Wii/DS games might be especially bland since they have weaker tech and devlopers wouldn't have the time to pour innovation into their 5-7+ games.
Next, let's say (somehow) every developer were able to release every game on every console. Consumers don't buy every console equally, and different consoles have different consumers with different interests. The sales of "Some Cool New Game: Revolution" might be quite high on PS3, decent on Wii, and horrendous on 360 and PC. Even with high numbers on the PS3 and cutting even on the Wii, that might not be enough to outweigh what they lost by releasing the game on 360 and PC. Every single game would need to have a broad appeal or incredible luck to succeed.
What you're proposing is a fantasy that would limit innovation and leave the games business to behemoths and gambling companies. Many indies would go extinct.
#2 There's no need for them to jump onto the development train for 3DS if people aren't buying it yet. They can churn a profit on other consoles until the 3DS becomes more established. There's no real incentive to go after a small userbase. Even if your title is a console seller, the console's sales aren't going in your pocket. Why not put your console-selling game on a console with millions and millions more consumers? This is why games like Dragon Quest are released on the most popular console and don't come at launch.
I understand your points. But if developers can't afford to release games simultaneously on multiple platforms, then why are people saying "the era of 3rd-party exclusives is gone"? Most major 3rd-party developers need to support multiple systems so they can have assured sales. If a game on one platform has low sales, and high sales on another platform, then they balance each other out. It's much easier and financially safer to go multiplatform, since the developer/publisher has a safety net.
I don't care who sells the best. This whole console war is pointless. It's just as stupid as the terms "casual" and "core".
Where did this obsession over console sales come from? Does anyone care if Ford sells more cars than Chrysler? Does anyone care if Samsung has the biggest marketshare for TVs? Does anyone care if Whirlpool sells more washers than Maytag? Does anyone care if Sony sells more digital cameras than Canon? Does anyone care if Warner Bros. has a bigger box-office hit than Universal?
To the general public, sales data is pointless. I don't care about it. I just buy the stuff that I want. For example: I recently bought a Samsung laptop. It had the features I wanted, and I don't care if HP or Dell sell more of them.
Well, on the internet and at places like NINTENDOLife.com, people express their passion and loyalty toward a certain brand, product, or company more overtly than they might in public. When someone is loyally buying systems from a company such as Nintendo, the sales of said system can have a huge effect on the individual's enjoyment, as WaltzElf so fluently explained earlier. This is why those on sites such as this care about sales and success.
And for the record, WaltzElf's explanation is very logical, and although there are not enough facts to consider either side of the argument true, his explanation very well may be, at least concerning immediate effect.
I understand your points. But if developers can't afford to release games simultaneously on multiple platforms, then why are people saying "the era of 3rd-party exclusives is gone"? Most major 3rd-party developers need to support multiple systems so they can have assured sales. If a game on one platform has low sales, and high sales on another platform, then they balance each other out. It's much easier and financially safer to go multiplatform, since the developer/publisher has a safety net.
The era of third party exclusives is over because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are no longer interested in paying for exclusives. Back in the day each of the hardware owners would invest money in third parties to have a value proposition that was different to its competitors. These days that's done in house.
Look at the acquisitions Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have made - they've all acquired software developers. They produce their own console selling exclusives now. So third parties are no longer having money thrown at them to compensate for the loss in sales for multiplatform releases.
I understand your points. But if developers can't afford to release games simultaneously on multiple platforms, then why are people saying "the era of 3rd-party exclusives is gone"? Most major 3rd-party developers need to support multiple systems so they can have assured sales. If a game on one platform has low sales, and high sales on another platform, then they balance each other out. It's much easier and financially safer to go multiplatform, since the developer/publisher has a safety net.
The era of third party exclusives is over because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are no longer interested in paying for exclusives. Back in the day each of the hardware owners would invest money in third parties to have a value proposition that was different to its competitors. These days that's done in house.
Look at the acquisitions Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have made - they've all acquired software developers. They produce their own console selling exclusives now. So third parties are no longer having money thrown at them to compensate for the loss in sales for multiplatform releases.
Most of Sony's franchises were started by a developer that Sony teamed up with (offered money for exclusive development), and then they later bought them out. So the developer was previously independent, and now they are a 1st-party studio.
Examples: Naughty Dog (Crash, Jak & Daxter) Media Molecule (LittleBigPlanet) Geurilla Games (Killzone) Sucker Punch (inFamous, Sly Cooper)
The same applies with Microsoft's acquisitions of Rare, Lionhead, and Bungie (though they are now once again 3rd-party).
Nintendo hasn't done many 3rd-party buyouts, because almost all of their games are developed in-house. I believe Intelligent Systems was bought out in the 1980's or 90's, and HAL is somewhat considered an in-house studio. The most recent acquisition Nintendo has made was MonolithSoft (Xenogears, Xenosaga, Xenoblade).
Also, there are still plenty of 3rd-party exclusives. Remember when Microsoft paid millions of dollars for GTA4's exclusive DLC? Look at all the exclusive 3rd-party games that are on the DS and PSP.
Forums
Topic: The "war" between handheld gaming and smartphones
Posts 21 to 40 of 60
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.