Wii U Forum

Topic: What does Nintendo have to lose by making the gamepad "optional"?

Showing 541 to 560 of 724

AuthorMessage
Avatar

ZeroZX_Dev

541. Posted:

GuSilverFlame wrote:

that's actually a good idea. a smaller Gamepad maybe with a "better" grip it would work and 100% surely it'd be called "Gamepad Lite"

Eww, screen crunch. No thanks!

Just some random loser who loves a variety of things.
Youtube Channel | Deviant ART | YoYo Games account
This is a video game
先輩くん、俺を 心付いてください。

3DS Friend Code: 2079-6493-1326 | Nintendo Network ID: ZeroZX_Dev | Twitter: ZeroZXDev

AuthorMessage
Avatar

RancidVomit86

542. Posted:

What was that mock up a Gamecube controller with a screen on it? That would actually be fantastic. Just reduce screen size to like 5-5.5". I could see it working well.

Xbox Live Gamer Tag - RancidVomit86
Battle.net - Dayman
Wii Code - 4335 5256 5880 9373
iOS Game Center - RancidVomit86

Writer for www.sega-addicts.com

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

543. Posted:

I have made clear answers to these points repeatedly in this thread

DefHalan wrote:

blaisedinsd wrote:

If the hypothetical Nintendo direct a few pages back was how they did it you guys wouldn't care.

It is hypothetical so now I don't care. You are asking a lot of Nintendo just to justify this choice.

blaisedinsd wrote:

The fears of loss of gamepad support is irrational. The only support it will get is from Nintendo and they have pledged continued support it. Gamepad owners lose nothing if the gamepad becomes optional.

If Nintendo is still making GamePad games and thus cannot sell games to people with the GamePad-less SKU then why would Nintendo want to sell that SKU?

blaisedinsd wrote:

It is mainly the inability to conceive of the wii u with out a gamepad that is causing these fears. I understand that is a problem they solve with an ambassador program. They do it right and no one has reason to complain or loses anything.

Some people invested in this console for the GamePad. People who don't care about the GamePad or don't want the GamePad need to be sold on it by games. If Nintendo is still focusing on the GamePad then why create a GamePad-less SKU? The best way to for Nintendo to sell their console is to create more/better software.

blaisedinsd wrote:

This has been established over the near 30 pages of this thread. If you don't understand read it again. If you still don't understand because you have a mental block that will only be cleared after the option is released. It won't affect you other than a possible ambassador benefit.

Just because you have continued to say the same thing over and over doesn't make it right. An "ambassador program" isn't to give people 1 last hoorah. An "ambassador program" is to, in a way, pay back loyal customers that paid more than they should have.

1. This move costs Nintendo nothing. A price cut is a disaster but this move is not.
2. This is no different them making motion plus games or balance board games. There is some sense that they owe us gamepad support since we adopted early and bought in to the gamepad. This is already covered as miyamoto has one goal, to make the best unique gamepad experience based games he can. The man makes the best games in the world, so why worry. Third party support is basically dead and Nintendo support is not threatened from being optional.
3. This is why there is a bit of egg on their face and they could offer an ambassador program, to quell this fear. Point 2 breaks down how that fear is not valid. But also don't you agree that the big games supposed to increase the consoles value this year don't really care that the console has a gp. Dk shuts it off and kart has a touch horn. Signs Nintendo is havering trouble utilizing the gamepad, at least in core titles. Gamepad featured games are basically niche appeal. 3d world, smash, kart don't need the gp.
4. Right, so someone who doesn't like the gp was forced to pay more by being force to buy it. Making it optional makes that person feel they should have waited. That's why an ambassador program may happen. It would apply to all users who were forced to buy the gp with their wii u.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

544. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

Don't you see though he is more interested at a lower price? Don't you agree the games will sell the system? (Not the gamepad features) Are you even aware the wii was a unique case? The motion control gimmic initially created huge demand. The install base was then so large it may have sold more games. This is not how it usually works in this industry. Do you understand that?

The games are the appeal of the wii u. The games are the core value. The console purchase is made like any other. Value vs cost. Do you understand this?

Don't patronise me. I have been saying for this whole thread that it's a matter of maintaining the value of the console. My argument from the start has been that this move would reduce the value of the console. The reasons being both because it's a unique feature and also because a lot of the already existing AAA games in its library lean heavily on it.

You're now trying to say that somehow this move increases the value purely because it reduces the cost. Using your brother in law as an example for this. Ignoring the fact that in the dialogue you posted of him allegedly being overwhelmingly in favour of your idea he immediately asked if the GamePad would still be available. Furthermore you failed to explain why, if it was just cost, the PS4 is doing well.

You claimed the PS4 was doing well because of its brand. Others went further:

JohnRedcorn wrote:

[Umm....because its a better value? Bluray player, larger HD, better technology, guaranteed to get all the big third party games and has a far brighter future?

I would pay $400 for a Nintendo console that was all of the above as well. As proven by Apple, there are MILLIONS of people who will shell out a lot of cash for 'high end' electronic devices. People would rather buy a PS4, than spend $100 less to get a product that they view as technologically weaker, that lacks a lot of the games they want to play.

I stand by my disagreement with the argument about Smash players lining up to get this SKU more than they would have otherwise purely for the lower price. The core gamer is not that concerned about price they're more interested in the quality of the games. Removing the GamePad doesn't help with that.

As I have said repeatedly and have had it fall on deaf ears. The Wii U needs games, the Wii U needs Smash, Kart and X to be out already. What it doesn't need is more confusion amongst the casual end of the market. If a price drop is what it needs then why isn't is doing fantastically already with the price drop it has? If price is the only thing that matters why is the PS4 doing so well? Why is the 2DS not the most popular 3DS SKU?

How many console wars have you been around for blaisedinsd? Do you understand this? Do you get that its about the games and the value?
;)

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

545. Posted:

The console is $130 on eBay. How great would it be if you could buy that and have access to smash and kart and dk and 3d world and wind waker hd and pikmin3 and wonderful 101 etc etc with no gp

Requiring it for text entry and system setting and eshop makes no sense. These are issues that lessen the appeal of this $130 option. It's vastly more appealing if the software updates, those things that ,require the gp but the gp buttons can be used so why not the pro? Increasing the appeal of this $130 console is a smart thing because some one can buy it and now will buy wii u games.

This should be done. It's a convenience for gp owners and good for sw sales. If they should do this anyway and it makes sense why not sell a cheap sku that uses the same concept. Getting people access to sw is the goal and the gp creates an unnecessary barrier by increasing the price.

How much is a replacement gp? $120? That makes buying this a $250 proposition. Not really saving because a brand new one has games bundled that if you want anyway make it more than $300. It's better if this $130 option is one people have to buy software they want.

We would have no reason to be upset if this happens. Gp support is hardly affected and we lose none of what we have so far. Only that we were forced to buy gp is only reason to complain. An ambassador reward could more than make up for that. Also someone who hates gp and still bought no longer is needlessly forced to use it and got an ambassador reward, no reason to complain if Nintendo does this. Nintendo therefore has nothing to lose by doing this. They want to sell sw and consoles and gp games will sell gps along with gp features. Someone who doesn't want gp shouldn't be forced to spend 33% more. That's a problem. Unless you think Nintendoland game and Wario and wii party u are the systems best games and you want more of that than maybe you won't get as much , but we don't know of anything more if that that's on the way now anyway.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

546. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
What about the fact that people interested in this SKU, your brother in law included, are likely to get it for the lower price and then get the GamePad anyway. Then they're sitting there complaining about how Nintendo forced them to buy the Pro Controller. They shouldn't be forced to buy an extra controller when all they really want is the one that plays Wind Waker, Pikmin, 3D World, Rayman, Nintendo Land, Game & Wario and Wii Party to their full extent.

Oh wait, I forgot. In your mind they've already gone back and retroactively patched the entire Wii U library to remove the GamePad entirely. And these people at the bottom end of the market don't care at all about using it. But it's all good because the people who did get the GamePad are going to get some NES games as compensation..................

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

547. Posted:

skywake wrote:

Don't patronise me. I have been saying for this whole thread that it's a matter of maintaining the value of the console. My argument from the start has been that this move would reduce the value of the console. The reasons being both because it's a unique feature and also because a lot of the already existing AAA games in its library lean heavily on it.

I wasn't. I was hoping you would acknowledge whether or not you understood each point I was making. If you did not I am willing to further discuss it so we can see where we are not understanding each other or if we simply disagree.

My argument is that the core value of the console is it's game library, not the gp features. Yeah the GP features are great for some and not important to others. Removing the GP only devalues the console to someone who values the GP. Giving the option of not using the GP increases the value to GP users (options, functional console if you GP has an issue). Your argument makes perfect sense if we are talking about removing the GP from the console. This is the mental block I can't seem to get around with you. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Giving someone the option devalues nothing. They PAY LESS FOR LESS VALUE....there is nothing wrong with this. IF they want to play AAA game that needs a GP they need to get a GP. This is not an issue. It's exactly the same as choosing a 360 SKU with no kinect because your value vs cost buying decision does not value the kinect features at their current cost. You can only play a sub-library of 360 titles and you lose the enhancements it brings to others. Let consumer make their own value vs cost buying decision. If the GP is optional they apply a value to the console and a separate value to the GP and consumer choice lets the console and the GP sales perform based on their merit in the consumers eyes of how they perceive the value of each.

So yes, the sku with no GP has less value, thats why it costs less. Thats the way it should be. So is that we are talking about as far as devaluing the console? It doesn't matter anymore than deluxe was a better value to most than the Basic.....that doesn't mean offering the basic was a bad idea. Do we agree?

skywake wrote:

You're now trying to say that somehow this move increases the value purely because it reduces the cost. Using your brother in law as an example for this. Ignoring the fact that in the dialogue you posted of him allegedly being overwhelmingly in favour of your idea he immediately asked if the GamePad would still be available. Furthermore you failed to explain why, if it was just cost, the PS4 is doing well.

No No No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying as far as comparing the two SKUs the one with no GP lowers the value and the cost. I am also saying lowering the cost of entry to Wii U software is in Nintendos best interest because software is the big money maker and ultimately what they need to sell to get WIi U profitable.

You can see this in his decision process. Wii U for $200, sounds great. Oh, but I don't get the GP....I kind of want the GP. How much is the GP. $100? Well thats basically the same thing, I would rather wait for the GP to come down or overall cost to get lower. (this is not a real price cut which he sort of figured out)

Based on that the WIi U has an overall value problem. He wants the whole thing, GP and all, but it's cost is higher than the value he places on it.

Now, Nintendo increases the value by releasing the best Mario Kart Ever. This game is the bees knees. My bro-in law sees this and now really wants a Wii U to play Mario Kart. He looks at the value vs cost again and thinks $200 to play Mario Kart on my TV, I'll do it and get the GP later when I have more money or when it gets cheaper or when a great game he needs the GP for comes out.

What I am saying is Nintendo increases the value of the console with Games. The games coming out that do this are not selling GP features. The value of a No GP Wii U is increasing more than the value of a GP Wii U with the lineup thats on the way. They can lower the cost of a no GP Wii and it costs Nintendo nothing to do this, they profit the same on the HW sale and the same on any SW that person buys. The GP has value based on what they have done with it. The GP's value is not currently increasing...it's stagnant. Nintendo would do well to take advantage of the Increasing value of a No GP Wii U by lowering the cost in order to make more sales.

Does that make sense to you?

As far as PS4 which is off topic.
I agree, but stronger more powerful HW is only an aspect of PS4 sales. Sony has shown even with a disaster on the level of PS3 that went on for what 6-7 years that they continued to get the games on the console. You know when you buy a Sony Console it will have tons of games. Being the most powerful is something expected of the brand, they certainly wouldn't release anything underpowered like the Wii or Wii U because thats not what they are about. For me I don't buy a Sony console for the brand. I wait for the games that increase its value and for the cost to come down. Others are just jumping on it because they are hungry for the new gen and Wii U looked last gen and its a better value to them than Xbone.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

548. Posted:

skywake wrote:

@blaisedinsd
What about the fact that people interested in this SKU, your brother in law included, are likely to get it for the lower price and then get the GamePad anyway. Then they're sitting there complaining about how Nintendo forced them to buy the Pro Controller. They shouldn't be forced to buy an extra controller when all they really want is the one that plays Wind Waker, Pikmin, 3D World, Rayman, Nintendo Land, Game & Wario and Wii Party to their full extent.

Oh wait, I forgot. In your mind they've already gone back and retroactively patched the entire Wii U library to remove the GamePad entirely. And these people at the bottom end of the market don't care at all about using it. But it's all good because the people who did get the GamePad are going to get some NES games as compensation..................

So I am supposed to believe someone who passes on the GP at their initial purchase is going to be mad they have a controller to play with?

It would be nice if wii remotes and classic were supported for system OS and all games too. Maybe sell it with no controller than, would that alleviate your argument here?

Some games can be played with no GP. Those games are what give the no GP bundle value. The games that need the GP give the GP value. I don't understand why we are stuck on this point. It's just like 360 and Kinect (not EXACTLY like it so for the love of pete don't bother to tell me how it's different)

In general my idea is you patch something like 3D world and pretty much any game you can play off tv you can play with a procontroller on the TV. I don't recall having to use the touch screen or anyting when playing off tv.

The incompatibility list I have so far is:
Nintendoland, WIi Party U, Game and Wario, Zombi U, and Lego City

Those last 2 could be patched if it was worth it, maybe not. If the no GP option becomes popular it's more likely those would get patched. If those get patched I now get an awesome Off TV play feature added to those games.

A game like Batman Armored edition requires the GP now but it allows off tv play. I think its minimal effort to get this existing off tv mode to be playable with a TV and a procontroller.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

549. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

You can see this in his decision process. Wii U for $200, sounds great. Oh, but I don't get the GP....I kind of want the GP. How much is the GP. $100? Well thats basically the same thing, I would rather wait for the GP to come down or overall cost to get lower. (this is not a real price cut which he sort of figured out)

So this is the example you're bringing out as a purchaser who will be more interested in getting this cheaper SKU. This here. Right?

I never once said that price was not an issue at all. I said that it was just less important than the perceived value for money. This example here is the main thrust of my argument and exactly what I said the consumer would do at the POS. They'd look at this cheaper SKU, remember that the GamePad is kinda the point of the Wii U. Then they'll look at how much the GamePad was and see that they're going to be spending more. They'd either walk away or get the SKU with the GamePad.

I find it interesting that you think your argument is so compelling. Then the two examples you come up with are the person who hasn't got it because of price who remains unconvinced and was asking about the GamePad cost. Then the other example was someone who already has a Wii U and is boycotting it as a feature for some reason. Then there's you who is arguing that it should be removed but then rants about how great a feature it is in order to try and win everyone over.

I must say.... still unconvinced. If anything your examples have made me more certain that this is a bad idea.

blaisedinsd wrote:

So I am supposed to believe someone who passes on the GP at their initial purchase is going to be mad they have a controller to play with?

No, I'm not telling you to believe anything. Make up your own mind. I was just saying that the low end "single player" consumer that quickly realises that the GamePad is kinda the Wii U's thing will be annoyed when they find out they've paid extra for a Pro Controller they eventually don't need. Because they quickly got the GamePad as in the example of your brother in law.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

550. Posted:

skywake wrote:

blaisedinsd wrote:

You can see this in his decision process. Wii U for $200, sounds great. Oh, but I don't get the GP....I kind of want the GP. How much is the GP. $100? Well thats basically the same thing, I would rather wait for the GP to come down or overall cost to get lower. (this is not a real price cut which he sort of figured out)

So this is the example you're bringing out as a purchaser who will be more interested in getting this cheaper SKU. This here. Right?

I never once said that price was not an issue at all. I said that it was just less important than the perceived value for money. This example here is the main thrust of my argument and exactly what I said the consumer would do at the POS. They'd look at this cheaper SKU, remember that the GamePad is kinda the point of the Wii U. Then they'll look at how much the GamePad was and see that they're going to be spending more. They'd either walk away or get the SKU with the GamePad.

I find it interesting that you think your argument is so compelling. Then the two examples you come up with are the person who hasn't got it because of price who remains unconvinced and was asking about the GamePad cost. Then the other example was someone who already has a Wii U and is boycotting it as a feature for some reason. Then there's you who is arguing that it should be removed but then rants about how great a feature it is in order to try and win everyone over.

I must say.... still unconvinced. If anything your examples have made me more certain that this is a bad idea.

blaisedinsd wrote:

So I am supposed to believe someone who passes on the GP at their initial purchase is going to be mad they have a controller to play with?

No, I'm not telling you to believe anything. Make up your own mind. I was just saying that the low end "single player" consumer that quickly realises that the GamePad is kinda the Wii U's thing will be annoyed when they find out they've paid extra for a Pro Controller they eventually don't need. Because they quickly got the GamePad as in the example of your brother in law.

Well those are just examples. There is still an unkown amount of people who don't care about 3D and will stoked to get a 2DS....um uh I mean

There is still an unknown amount of people who don't care about the GP who would be stoked to get a Wii U to play just on their TV.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge there are people who don't like the GP is confounding. These people would love the option and the ones who hate the GP and have a Wii U would love not being forced to use it. These people are a sales spike if you offer this option.

Making it optional eliminates a barrier for those people and doesn't really affect people who like the GP. Making it optional makes everyone happy. I don't understand why anyone would care about it becoming optional. If you consider my hypothetical Nintendo Direct even though you think it would upset you I don't think you would care.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

551. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
Then come up with examples that aren't people who don't change their mind and aren't people who have already purchased the thing. If your best argument is that it's unknown and that it'll result in a spike in sales because it will then I don't think you have an argument. I'd argue that people who rant about how much they hate the GamePad would not change their mind about the Wii U if it was removed. They're called fanboys. I don't refuse to acknowledge that they exist I just don't believe that the GamePad is anything other than a scapegoat.

And again with your 2DS and hypothetical Nintendo Direct. They don't help your argument. The fact that I'm not cowering in the corner about your suggestion is not enough for this to be a good idea. You need to explain how this move is a net-positive rather than a net-negative. At the very least come up with examples of people who's mind is changed about the Wii U because of this.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

552. Posted:

@skywake

Look, I feel I have already made those points but here we go again.

The main target of the SKU is people who don't care for or need the GP. These people will be more likely to buy if the cost is lower because they don't have to buy a GP. It is all potential sales to someone who want a GP but decides to jump in to Wii U because of a game that doesn't need it.

Whether or not you think these people are highend and therefore will buy the GP whether they want it or not is only relevant in your mind. The reality is cost vs value is what people consider when making a purchase. If they don't value the GP at $100 or whatever it is you will sell more consoles that don't include a gamepad for $100 to people who don't place that high a value on it.

It doesn't matter if this is a one month 5% sales spike if that spike pays for the cost Nintendo incurs of repackaging and pathcing whatever games they decide to patch. If a game supports off tv play I believe its simple to patch that mode as playable with a pro and a tv. The cost is small and the move only needs to result in a profit to make it worth it. Since a no GP wii U stills sells software that is the main win for Nintendos business.

Since it costs them little and they stand to profit it makes sense. But is their a long term risk? The only risk we have identified that we agree on is a negative reaction from early adopters. If they explain why it makes sense for them to do it (as I have repeatedly done) and they reassure us that they will continue to support the GP with GP games and off tv play for everything else and they offer some sort of ambassador reward this negative reaction is effectively handled. The 3DS price drop was a much more sever slap in the face. The Wii U is struggling and Nintendos support of it all we can count on anyway at this point.

Yes you can make arguments against the value of this SKU but it's a waste of time just like arguing how stupid the 2DS is when you bought a 3DS XL. The 2DS doesn't hurt you and the Wii U still working whether someone has a GP doesn't hurt you. Yes the internet laughed at the 2DS and they will laugh at this too. 3DS is doomed and 3D is a failed gimmic. Wii U is doomed and the GP is a failed gimmic. Whatever internet, the moves make business sense and Nintendo is historically the top dawg at making profit in this business.

The hypothetical Nintendo direct helps my argument because my entire argument is simply Nintendo has nothing to lose by making the GP optional

If that direct dropped tomorrow you would be surprised but you wouldn't be upset. Maybe your fanboy pride takes a hit because the internet is laughing at the failed GP but if you care about that stuff you got your priorities wrong.

One guy responded he would be upset about it and his reasoning made no sense, it was "OMG the wii U with no GP sux! Stupid Nintendo!" That is a ridiculous reaction because the Wii U still has a GP and if you like the enhanced GP experience you are losing nothing and gaining some ambassador reward and a better functioning console.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

553. Posted:

Mainly I am proposing Nintendo has nothing to lose by doing this.

I have proven that point.

I have gone back and forth with how likely I think this happening is but overall it makes sense because this doesn't:

I want to play Halo. Microsoft forces me to spend an extra $100 on a kinect I don't want or need. I decide it's not worth it. Microsoft made a bad business move because I would have bought more than Halo if I thought the console was worth it but kinect made me pass.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

554. Posted:

@blaisedinsd
Firstly I haven't once said that the 2DS was a bad move or that the 3DS was doomed because of it. I have also repeatedly explained how that's an entirely different sort of SKU. No requirement for retroactively patching old games for a start. The fact that you keep bringing it up weakens your argument rather than strengthens it. So for the sake of the strength of your increasingly weakened argument just cull that bit from any further posts. Same goes for the Ambassador program rant.

This bit here:

blaisedinsd wrote:

The main target of the SKU is people who don't care for or need the GP. These people will be more likely to buy if the cost is lower because they don't have to buy a GP. It is all potential sales to someone who want a GP but decides to jump in to Wii U because of a game that doesn't need it.

is the only bit from that wall of text that addresses the question. My disagreement stems from the fact that I don't believe this theoretical person exists in the numbers you think they do. Not enough to justify the other problems that are created. My argument is that the consumer concerned about the price is more along the lines of your brother in law and that the higher end consumer who might not be excited about the GamePad isn't put off by its inclusion. Furthermore Nintendo have made the GamePad the focus of their system and even you are talking about how they should keep pushing games that require it to keep that going.

Explain how this is not the case rather than just asserting that you are correct. Without the rants about "fanboy pride" or the thought that I'm disagreeing purely because apparently I'm incapable of understanding how a business works. I can assure you that the feeling is mutual.

blaisedinsd wrote:

I want to play Halo. Microsoft forces me to spend an extra $100 on a kinect I don't want or need. I decide it's not worth it. Microsoft made a bad business move because I would have bought more than Halo if I thought the console was worth it but kinect made me pass.

The Kinect bundle was the budget SKU. My brother got a 360 for my niece because she wanted to play Halo, it was the Kinect bundle that he picked up. That's the Kinect, a thing that doesn't do anything for the typical "core" gamer. The GamePad however is something that's a much easier sell.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

RancidVomit86

555. Posted:

@skywake is right here I think.

I just don't see the market of potential consumers opening up enough that it makes it worth making the gamepad optional. I have a feeling the people who don't buy the system still wouldn't.

Xbox Live Gamer Tag - RancidVomit86
Battle.net - Dayman
Wii Code - 4335 5256 5880 9373
iOS Game Center - RancidVomit86

Writer for www.sega-addicts.com

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

556. Posted:

Well you guys are not paying attention

The gamepad is one of the most divisive things about the wii u. Some people don't like and don't need off tv and don't want to look down as a second screen

The second screen has proven to be less compelling on a console than on a handheld. Nintendo is having difficulty utilizing the gamepad. It is adding a huge cost to the console and it's failing to make it more appealing.

Whether or not you admit there are people who don't like the gamepad that preferred to play smash or kart with a gc controller because they didn't like motion controls are mostly interested in wii u for those games that don't need a gp is entirely irrelevant because it cost Nintendo very little to do this and there are enormous business reasons it makes sense that you are choosing to ignore. There are no reasons not to do this other than lack of acceptance that some people don't want or need a gp. Nintendo can do this and you won't even care. Why wouldn't they do this.

Overall, I am just saying they have nothing to lose. You all have agreed to that. Your just talking now about whether it makes sense to you. You are no different then people who refused to believe 3d could be dropped and failed to understand the appeal of the 2ds. Cut the gimmic fat to lower the entry cost to sw that appeals to those who are not interested in the gimmic.

I feel it's pretty simple and am confounded by the inability to grasp the concept. It won't hurt you and Nintendo has nothing to lose and whether you personally see the appeal of the sku is irrelevant. You don't understand why someone doesn't like the gp because you love it and that is the main reason you can't grasp the logic of what I am saying.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

RancidVomit86

557. Posted:

@blaisedinsd We may be wrong or you might be. The world never know by the looks of it.

Xbox Live Gamer Tag - RancidVomit86
Battle.net - Dayman
Wii Code - 4335 5256 5880 9373
iOS Game Center - RancidVomit86

Writer for www.sega-addicts.com

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

558. Posted:

Furthermore the relevance of kinect2 to Xbox one is continually ignored when I bring it up.

I think you see how requiring kinect 2 is hurting xboxone but you love of the gp is blinding you from seeing requiring the gp is a mistake in the same way.

Gp and kinect2 would be better as something that sells based on its own merit and it's own perceived value to the consumer. Forcing these things to be purchased for access to sw is not a wise move for either company.

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

blaisedinsd

559. Posted:

So you may as well argue making kinect 2 more appealing is the only strategy Microsoft should take with kinect or else you have no case.

Edited on by blaisedinsd

blaisedinsd

AuthorMessage
Avatar

OptometristLime

560. Posted:

blaisedinsd wrote:

I feel it's pretty simple and am confounded by the inability to grasp the concept. It won't hurt you and Nintendo has nothing to lose and whether you personally see the appeal of the sku is irrelevant. You don't understand why someone doesn't like the gp because you love it and that is the main reason you can't grasp the logic of what I am saying.

The only thing not grasped, is that your opinion on this topic is not the be-all end-all of the matter. For goodness sakes, this is a forum where things are discussed, not a sentencing court handing down the final verdict.

I think your own biases are forming the crux of your argument, you lash out at @skywake for loving the Game Pad, but the strange thing is you love it too. So is it your passion for Nintendo that makes you so insistent on this line of argumentation... I admit, the whole thing has me puzzled.

Miyamoto on his desire to focus more on the (hard)core Nintendo fan.

[The casual] attitude is, ‘okay, I am the customer. You are supposed to entertain me.’ [...] and to me it’s kind of a pathetic thing.

You are what you eat from your head to your feet.

Sorry, this topic has been locked.