Nintendo's already dead.

This was taken from an interview he done the 4th of march.

here's the whole interview:

source: IGN (http://cube.ign.com/articles/593/593733p1.html)


we all know how the market goes, and we all know third party-publishers won't risk their money on something unusual. Ninty will die. Always the best who dies first. (sega was the first. :smt033)


And i personally don't want to see the market tied between microsoft and sony...

 

I knew Iwata would screw things up. Personally, I don't care as long as it has Online play. However, if the system is another "Trial" system that tries to make a foundation for the system off one thing (AKA: The touch screen with the DS) , then it will fail badly.

 

1. SEGA was deeply in debt because of colossal past mistakes and revolving weak markets.
Nintendo is not in debt, has massive resources, and is profitable even off the GC, not to mention GBA. Ds..well, let's see.

2. Nintendo, most importantly, is owned by ITSELF. No back-stabbing money-grubbing parent company looking to selel out to the highest bidder.
This means a lot about Nintendo's freedom in going wher eit wants to go.

That being said though, despite Nintendo's money, if the Revolution isn't popular, all the money in the world won't make a dent (see : XBOX in the Nippon).

What really is stupid is how Ninty is nowhere NEAR giving either industry or fans hype and info on the scale of XBOX 2 and PS3, both of which feature regularly in news abour when the world's first sneak peek will be. The Revolution? Nothing.

 

The revolution will fail, Nintendo becomes a 3rd party. Sony & Microsoft crash the market, pull out and we're back in the situation we all loved: Sega &(or vs) Nintendo.

 

didnt you read it in the almanac in 2012 video game buiz fully collapses so sony and microsoft fusionate together (microsony) and bring out playbox 4d...

 

I don't think a lack of 3rd parties will make the revolution fail. So long as they have EA - which could take a large envelope - they will get by on EA and 1st party games - I'd buy one for 1sat party games alone - the majority of my gamecube games are, infact the only games i can think of that is in my collection and is 3rd party and semi- exclusive is viewtiful joe (until about november, that was..) Only other worthwile exclusive 3rd party game is RE:4, and even thats getting a release on the ps2 later..

 

Even if Nintendo does die, they will probably make a comeback to save the day, when Xbox and Sony screw things up.

 

First of all, Ninty is the weakest abbreviation I've ever heard, and in geenral sounds goofy. Second... nobody knows what the market will do. Everyone here fancies themselves an expert. Some claimed the DS wouldn't get off the ground, some claimed the PSP would be DOA... last I checked, both are alive and well.

 

Well, thats just how some people are. Its easy to say something will fail, if you want it to. Like several people believe all the negative hype about how the psp shooting cds better than playing them. They are probably afraid that their beloved system will get destroyed as well. No one does know what the market will do, and Nintendo will probably survive just because it is Nintendo, Sony will survive due to their large fanbase, and casual gamers, and Xbox will survive for the same reasons Sony will, but also plus they have a shitload of Money. Who knows what will happen. Perhaps Sega might go back to consoles one day, as well, or maybe, even a new console enters the market from someone else and maybe actually survives. Im no expert, im just saying my opinion.
As AFM, I tend to stay open-minded towards eveything. BTW, I really am like an AFM, because the only thing im a fan of is some of the game developers, mainly Working Designs, but there are a lot of other enjoyable developers as well. I wish that Nintendo would get more 3rd party support, though.

 

AFM?

 

The market IS satureted by tons of casual gamers that care more about the estetic of a game, and what everyone think of it than what mather the most, gameplay. You don't have to be expert to know this, not at all, you just have to watch what sells and what works right now to see that.

There's too much place in the handheld market to let only one master rule over all, thosw who said that one or the other would fail are crazy, just like the ones who said that microsoft had no place in the industry, wich was totally false.

it's just that nintendo's going down since the end of the 16 bit era. indeed, they make proffit of the gamecube sales since the start, contrarly to microsoft (but microsoft have a hell load of cash) and the gba was a gold mine, but they still loose fans everyday by always remaking the same games and placing mario everywhere. in fact, their ideas for hardware are pretty good, but it is not the same case for what mather the most, games.

and now this.... it's just going down and down, imo.

and the ninty abrev' is an old and long story... still, i love it, that's it.

 

See again, this is just another opinion. As a general view agreed by me and my friends (who own various different consoles, but play them all), we don't care what mascot is used so long as the game is good. Case in point, Nintendo's first/second party titles are still fantastic games. That really is enough for me, sorry it isn't for you.

You're right though, Nintendo ("Ninty" if you like ) have made money on the GC since it was launched. And as long as they keep making great games, I'll still buy them. Same with any other company.

 

I have a Hypothesis. I might be somewhat paranoid or conspirationist, but this is what I think WILL happen.

The second version of the great Videogame Market Crash is coming this generation.

Casual gamers don't really give a shit about gaming, but the market panders to them, especialy with $ony and Micro$oft. This alienates the original gaming crowd and gives the market away to people without a true and lasting interest in gaming unless it's "hip"

Thus, two effects come
1) No innovation = videogames become some sort of fad, especially with the Y-Generation's short attention span. Much more especially because these "generic" marketeable games become quite common and saturate the market.
2) Innovation = poor sales. The Gen-Y crowd doesn't want to touch things "outside the box" with a 10 foot pole. It's "dorky" (like it's MEANT to, dammit!)

This brings consequences as follows:
1) The market becomes flooded with subpar but very commercially friendly software, trying to cash on the "fashionable" videogame fad, and the casual gamer market, which is less than faithful. Eventually, it gets old, and these companies who did not innovate go out of business because there's too much offer and not much in terms of demand.
2) Commercially friendly software drives innovation out of the market. When Innovation is the only thing left, there's no market for it anyway, at least outside the "hardcore" market. So when Today's Intellivision, Colecovision and 5200 (PS3, Revolution, and XBox360) fail, even great, revolutionary machines (7800, Vectrex, and the such) have no incentive for developers: software publishers go out of the business for greener pasture markets (or out of business altogether), hardware developers have no third party support

Thus, the videogame market collapses into itself, and remains very weak for some 3 or 4 years, until somebody else innovates and brings it back, for at least another 10 years when this cycle repeats itself.

Proof? Something supporting my oddball hypothesis?
the 32 bit era still had many great innovative games, and a whole bunch of classics. Not as many as the 16 bit era, mind you, but many classics. In the 128 bit era, there are great games as well... Metal Gear Solid 2, Breath of Fire V, Halo 2, Paper Mario 2, Mario Sunshine, Katamari Damacy, and such. Most of them what remained of the 32 bit era.
The good 128 bit machine, Sega Dreamcast... well, it failed, even if it had magnificent games. The reason? Marketing. Not precisely a machine for the masses.
We get to have new machines made for the masses... at what price? No innovation. Until the market is tired of the same games. Then?
The crash.

Also: The Comic Book fiasco.

Once upon a time, comic books were VERY cheap, thus everybody bought them. Then they became collectible. They were about the status, not the stories. They became expensive, just because they could. They offered different satisfactions, for different market. The comic book market was alienated. The new comic book market, "investors", "collectors" (not like you guys - people who wanted comics because they were collectibles, not because they LIKED comics - somehow more common in today's videogame market) and people following the marketing fad, sooner or later dwindled. The original buyers found their habit too expensive for its original satisfactor.
The market was all but lost. (not ragging on videogame collectors here. I am talking about a sudden market leap to a less than faithful market, like comic book collectors who don't read comics are similar to today's hip casual gamers)
This hit the comic book industry like a wall of bricks and iron in the early nineties. I don't need to explain the videogame market shift again, do I?
It's the same thing.
The same results should follow.

BONUS! Very Odd coincidental theory about market success of consoles.

1) Caballistic colour proof. (nothing race related, before somebody gets offended.) No Black Coloured consoled has EVER succeeded in the market as the leader of its generation, at least after the "Darth Vader" revision of the 2600.
8 bit generation? The winner was the NES. The black console was SMS
16 bit generation? SNES. Genesis was a strong second. The TG16 got its ass kicked in the US. It was a big black machine. The grey, then white PC Engine died with dignity well into 1999.
32 bit generation? PSX. Even Nintendo failed... because the original N64 was a black machine. So was the Jaguar and Saturn (though it was grey or white in Japan, where it did not fail miserably)
128 bit generation? PS2 is black. It's selling like crazy but it's not PSX, software qualitywise. Xbox is black and green. Gamecube is blue and black. Result? Weak Market.
256 bit generation? Yet to see any colours. We will know when it happens, though.

Also. What is the new Revolutionary innovation in Nintendo's revolution software?
Gyroscopes.
Yup, that stuff that keeps the Segway straight (when not piloted by a certain president) and our wrists well exercised (with those cool little "light-up" balls).
With Gyroscopes, you can get TRUE motion/force feedback, which makes controlling stuff a very "new" experience. It's something not very far fetched, and it already exists in a form, though it has never been applied to gaming. Two automatic gyroscopes on the "revolution" controllers will give gamers a very new experience, but support of the things might not be very easy.
And stuff.

I might be crazy, but these are my ideas.

Is Nintendo already dead?
Let's see.
Is the console market gonna die?
If nobody does something to stop it, yes.

 

XerdoPwerko:

Can't always look at things like they currently are. Thing is, we are the very beginning of the console generation, whether we like it or not (Since gaming has only been around for 40 years). Thing is, there will always be a new generation of kids to grow up with the newest games, and the teenagers of this cycle and the previous one will grow old, and may pass it down to their kids.

Now, I can agree on the low motivation = bad games = bad sales arguement. The market is like this:

Newer software companies: Tries to create the next big game, usually tries to pour effort into it, but often misses. Most fail, but those who succeed become big name companies.

Popular companies: Experaments on new hits, while keeping their old fan favorites. Most idea games will flop, while revamped versions of older classics will get decent scores and will sell well (Unless it is Tomb Raider). Often remakes old classics to make a quick buck and to introduce it to a new generation.

License game companies: Makes games on movies and cartoons. 90% of them suck ass, but sell on brand name alone (AKA: Harry Potter games). Appeals more to the casual gamer. Also makes sports games for the general sports gamer.

It works in a chain: The console creator creates a console for games, a game company creates a game around the limitations of the console, and the gamer supports both the console, the developer, the publisher, and the store and whatever theme the game is based around by buying the game.

Better the console specs, graphics, and options = Better chance the games will be good = more likely the gamer will buy the game.

Limited options, bad graphics, little options = more likely for average to poor games = less likely the gamer will buy the game.

 

As far as I see it, the original videogame crash occured because a certain company got too big, too quickly, couldn't stand the heat, and licensed too many crappy games and made incredibly shitty hardware. As much as anyone would like to slate Sony, they aren't going to make the same kind of mistakes as Atari. The videogame crash of the early eighties was a market exploding uncontrollably - nothing similar is happening right now. It's a steady stream of revenue, with everything weighed up nicely on both ends. No videogame crash is going to occur any time soon - Sony and Microsoft are way to business-savy to let that occur. They know their target audiences and they will succeed in advertising to them, because they've both ploughed a lot of money into analysis. This is fundamentally different from the situation in the early 80's, not least in the fact that the audience itself is hundreds of times bigger.

Secondly, organising consoles by execution (ie 32, 64, whatever) is liable to generate much debate. Xbox CPU is 32-bit (x86) - so please, abandon that way of identifying console generations right now.

Uh, third, the console colour analogy is unimportant. Colour has fuck all to do with it. PS2 is a fine example: it's easily the leader in sales this generation, and it's black. Megadrive was the clear winner in the UK, and it was black. Nobody really cares what colour the console is.

Hell, fourthly, Revolution has no actual confirmation of any gyroscope stuff being involved. I remember seeing a 3D mockup about 2 years ago of the Nintendo Revolution console - internet rumours are not a good basis to make any kind of judgment on.

 

All your points are true, Alchy

Once again, it's my own crazy oddball hypothesis and it might be absolutely insane, but it's still what I believe or at least think feasible.

The colour is in there just for some humour/curiosity value, like a snopes.com urban legend thing. I indicated it as a coincidental and caballistic idea. Also odd.

Any theory taken seriously is ridiculous, man. Mine, as well.

My take on revolution is as valid as most internet rumours. Once again, it's what I think is most likely. I'm not a gaming journalist or anything. The revolutionary part might even be connecting your machine to a badger or a controller that gives your private parts electric shocks. Who knows. I'm still gonna try it. Unless it REALLY gives my privates electric shocks.


And yes, console crash Version 2.0 will not be identical to the original console crash, and most likely as head over heels dramatic, but I still think it might happen to today's market.


(Edit: Atari Jaguar is 32 bits, and I've heard Dreamcast itself is 64 bits. No idea whether the PS2 or Gamecube are really 128 bit machines. They refer to themselves as such, though. It's just what people call them, I'm not saying "they're 128 bits FOR SURE and nobody who thinks otherwise must ever comment on the real bittage". Hell, the Intellivision was a 16 bit machine too. I still refer to the "generations" like that because it's easier to group. )

 

yes, it's an opinion, i already said it (imo). still, i'm not the only one with this opinion.

Love your thoughts Xerdo, an interesting read with some plausible parts.
speaking of weird conspiracy\theory coming from paranoids (;-)) have you heard about the 3rd rule theory?

 

Can't say I have heard about the 3rd rule theory.

Would sure love to.

Does it have something to do with Fight Club?
The first and second rules there are the same, though...

 

I already explained this to you in the explain your sig thread.