ChaoticIgnorance wrote:

While it didn't have all the games that the PS2 and Xbox had, it was on par with the Xbox and better than the PS2 with just as big of a varied library.

It had more games than the Xbox, but the Xbox also lost money for Microsoft.

Quote:

Secondly, why does Nintendo /need/ to make T and M rated games? I mean sure they're missing out on a big market by not creating them, but Sony and Microsoft don't make nearly as many E rated games (pre-Kinect I suppose), yet they do fine and nobody complains.

Think back to when you were really young. if your parents gave you the opportunity to get Mortal Kombat (maybe GTA3 for our younger members), would you say "No, I want that game intended more for my age group." I bet I'd hear more small children on Call of Duty online than Smash Bros. E ratings theoretically leave it open to all ages, but as a kid, you would rather get what you couldn't have. Forbidden fruits is Marketing 101 with kids, which is why you'll see teenagers on commercials selling toys to little kids. They'll buy what the older generation would think is cool.

Quote:

It reminds me of the times when people complain that Nintendo is failing because they refuse to make new IPs, when clearly they have more than both Microsoft and Sony combined.

Because MS has one (which is still riding high off of fanboyism and online gaming, despite being bland and unfun) and Sony has some, but has the same problems that Nintendo does, and they will rehash the crap out of some of them. To be fair, Nintendo does tend to at least mix it up once in a while (Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Paper Mario...), but when those prove successful, they'll just start milking again. Think about it: We didn't get a real Mario platformer for years after Super Mario World, then Mario 64 came out and blew everyone's mind. If you oversaturate an IP (or in Sonic's extreme case, oversaturate it with shitty games), you run the risk of losing customers with fatigue of same-old same-old, as we saw with Guitar Hero (predicting Call of Duty to follow) and EA's old corporate structure. Nintendo doesn't need new IP's, they just need to learn how to market and sell their current ones in a more beneficial way.

Quote:

It's an argument that people like to throw out there when they should be directing the hate at 3rd parties who refuse to make games for Nintendo systems. With both the Wii and the 3DS, 3rd parties have been hesitant with making games because either they don't sell well, or the install base isn't there. Well they don't sell well because the companies don't put enough effort into making unique stuff.

Unique doesn't always sell, which is a damned shame. And really, they both have very large libraries, but the problem was that the Wii was really just treated like a fad by smaller developers who wanted to but in and charged $60 for cheap games that would have flopped on XBLA. On the other hand, the DS has a great library full of all types of games, with great new ones coming out regularly, with a lot of third party support. I don't see the DS being the problem in all of this. It sold, and as I understand, continues to sell very well, and I see people of all ages playing one everywhere I go. One thing I have to wonder about is the trade-in or re-sale estimates on Wiis. You'd see casual, previously non-gamers buying them in droves upon release, leading to its massive sales, but how many of them actually kept up with it and kept buying games? The DS doesn't really have that problem I guess, because people use it to keep themselves busy while traveling and such. In that case, buying a new game is like buying a new book, or new song for your MP3 player. It's a smart, profitable business model.

Quote:

Not to mention, I'm not sure if this is fact and I have no evidence, but isn't this a 'loss' for Nintendo only because the Wii and DS were so big? They haven't had anything nearly as big in the last 30 years, so of course it's going to look like they're taking a hit with the system that is released just after the Wii/DS. If anything that shows how freakin giganticly amazing they were last generation. It's not a loss, they just didn't make as much money this quarter.

I see rage coming on at my previous comments. This is the problem with fanboyism, whether it's business or even something like politics. Nintendo has a money problem. Now whether or not it has to do with its hardware, software, or its demographics' woes during the downturn in the world markets is beyond me, but saying they've done everything "giganticly amazing," is just incorrect. They are having problems.

The best thing you could do as a customer or company is to encourage different avenues, or be open yourself. I went through a period about a year after I got my 360 where the games were getting horribly bland and samey. I wasn't buying anything, and almost considered selling it. Perhaps Microsoft saw that they weren't doing as well as they could, so they revamped Xbox Live, attracting great games to the Arcade, and tiny little popcorn (read: borderline plagiarism) games to the indie section. I especially like the Games on Demand section, which appeals to the impulse buyer in me. They typically release only mid-to-high quality games, something Nintendo can do to show off the best of the Wii's library. Older casual gamers and very young players have probably never played a Zelda or Mario game, and they should be introduced to them, but as older gamers we're in our own mindset of Nintendo's classic IP's being part of an everyday constant in the industry. People should be introduced these great games, new or old, but most of them don't really look into gaming news or history. It's just not going to happen if they're buried in Gamestop's bargain bin underneath Super Carnival Shooter 6 or something, if it could be worked into the online component.

Please don't take this as me dumping on you in particular. I saw your post was filled with a lot of points that I've seen and would like to respond to, so it seemed like a good place to start a friendly debate over it.