How so? Are simply talking about the features they added? Because the ps3's ability to browse the Internet and watch blue ray's didn't stop me from playing Fallout 3. Nintendo's current business model did stop me from playing it on the Wii (even if it was on the Wii, it would have been a completely gimped version). And I don't think Microsoft wants the xb1 to appeal to casuals. To me it seems like they want it to be some kind of ultimate home theater pc that also plays gamesthe hidden eagle said:
Double standards against Nintendo
- Thread starter VG_Addict
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That it runs like a Windows 8 pc, Microsoft wants a "unified experience" across all their devices and the fact they recommended it to business owners cause of voice controlled skype makes me think they want some kind of "cool new type of pc" and thought they could just ride on the xbox brand's success.the hidden eagle said:
Fallacious, where do people get this from? The actual Xbox 360 itself went into profit per unit years ago, the Xbone is already in profit. Discounting warranty replacements (RRoD) and the development costs of the two previous consoles the hardware is still in net loss for the 360, peripherals like controllers and headsets have been making massive profit. When you factor in advertising revenue, XBLA revenue, gold subscriptions and the revenue from licensing and first party games Microsoft have pocketed billions.Aiddon said:
Q3 Profits for just last year where $342 USD and have risen year on year. [http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250907/microsoft-profits-up-xbox-division-up-55-13m-xbox-360s-shipped/] Four quarters per year of profits ranging from half that to that figure, I am sure you can do the maths.
The resistance from the board stems from the fact the entire XBox enterprise is only worth between 20-25% of Microsoft's earnings yet it takes considerable investment, much more than even the hardware and devices division with products like the Surface. Some of the board wants to dump Xbox and concentrate on hardware and devices to compete with Apple, they see Xbox as too risky with the amount of investment it takes.
...umm, where have you been for several months? Did you miss the Microsoft shitstorm? Nintendo couldn't get negative press like that if they tried. At worst the media treats them with mild neglect or contempt. It's regrettable, but I'd say most gamers have a positive outlook on them. They just aren't taken as seriously because they aren't nearly as successful.
Well, the comment mostly had to do with the fact that people are declaring doom for Nintendo because their desire to see Nintendo release their games on other systems, not because Nintendo is actually in any danger of going under. Granted, if they have one or two more generations where the console sells as badly as the WiiU has been, then we might see them starting to consider other options, but having one bad system is hardly going to harm them, especially when some of their recent systems (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been rather impressive regarding sales.The Almighty Aardvark said:
Of course, I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with wanting less console exclusivity. The problem I have is when gamers start calling the practice "anti-consumer" or "morally corrupt", as if the idea of wanting to make money off of your own console is suddenly a bad thing, and many of these companies have little more to sell their consoles on than the games that are provided. Unless gamers are willing to find solutions to help these companies while also helping themselves, then I see no reason to acknowledge their complaints as little more than greedy, self-entitled whining that will likely backfire on them in the future. However, if we also start thinking more about how these companies can benefit from less console exclusivity in a way that doesn't backfire on us, then I might be able to take it more seriously. Until then, just accept the fact that you can't have everything you want. After all, it isn't like less exclusivity will let you have everything, as you either don't have the time or money to enjoy everything you want to enjoy.
Morally corrupt is definitely a massive over-exaggeration. Anti-consumer though? I'd say it's pretty reasonable to say that. The whole practice of exclusives is designed to make you buy a console you wouldn't otherwise be interested in buying. It makes the consumer less likely to buy the games they want, but more likely to buy a console they don't. You even mention this problem in your post, that some of these companies have "little more to sell their consoles on than the games that are provided". This is something that you're defending? Because those are definitely the consoles I least want to buy to play a gameMysticSlayer said:
Also, why and how is it the consumer's responsibilities to find solutions for a business practice that negatively affects them? They don't exactly have the power to change corporate policy beyond criticizing things they don't like. I realize that it's something that is difficult to change, if one console decides to give up on exclusives that will just make the other ones look better. That still doesn't mean I shouldn't think it's a shitty business practice
If there's anything to complain about Nintendo's business practices, it's largely due to them not following suit with what the general (read: American) "follow the leader" approach; this generally means capitalizing on whatever's most popular at the time(multiplayer FPS, MMORPGs, and many others), marketing the hell out of it, and moving on (and subsequently cutting losses) as soon as the next big thing comes along. Essentially, to the "local" analyst Nintendo's business tactics could very well seem to be self-destructive.
The strange thing is... by sticking to their (metaphorical) guns, Nintendo could very well be saving themselves from the risk of being caught up in the potential "video game bubble" which has been forming over the past decade or so. This isn't to imply that the video game industry could crash like the early 80s, just that the "bubble" could easily pop in the near future; when that happens, most of the developers and publishers will either take a major hit or dissolve entirely (a "crash" being when all of them dissolve). The preferred approach for most American corporations is to abandon ship before, such that they don't take a financial hit (loss of cash-flow being inevitable) while gaining the most benefit.
Now, stop and think for a moment. Where is the "bubble" most likely to pop first? The "fad" genres, of course; the quick cash-ins. These are always transient, so they'll vacate very quickly; whomever's caught in the downfall will likely go under. Does Nintendo really bother with these genres? Not really. They will likely face some financial issues (all will), but it won't be as sudden or as decimating as those who have invested heavily in the fad games.
---
Assuming that the popping of the "bubble" doesn't result in a total crash of the video game industry, all (surviving) developers and publishers will be focused on recovering and rebuilding the industry; let us also assume that Nintendo is among them.
What type of games will those which revive the industry as a whole? My guess is that another "fad genre" won't be doing so, especially since that's where most of the losses will likely be incurred (quite possibly due to players becoming fed up with obvious cash-in games); got to start small, and provide some incentive for players to come back for the next product. There's also a very good chance the "best" games which will revive the industry will be remembered as classics; they'll be damned good games people will remember fondly (and replay for decades to come), regardless of who makes them.
Beside the obvious history of Nintendo being one of the prime contributors to reviving the industry from the crash which happened in the early 80s, they've amassed quite a library of venerable classics over the years. If there are no fad genres to dictate what's going to be popular in the industry, players will most likely flock towards the genuinely better games.
Another interesting thing I've noticed over the past few years is Nintendo has been absorbing ("saving", one could say) some very notable developers; for example, Monolith Soft and Platinum Games. These smaller developers will continue to produce good games, regardless of who is publishing their games; and if saved from dissolution and treated well, they could definitely be appreciative of Nintendo. Also, makes one wonder if Nintendo is reading the writing on the wall...
---
The one valid issue is that Nintendo may be faced with the necessity of dropping their consoles; these will always be a high risk, even if they do provide some benefits. This could definitely pose an issue in the (near?) future...
... but what about the phenomenal first-party developers? If Nintendo cuts console development, these guys will still be around; if they become a "third-party" developer and move onto other platforms (including the PC), how will this "shake up" the status-quo with ease. Nintendo's flagship franchises are revered for their quality, and other publishers may find their effective dominance on non-Nintendo consoles being threatened simply because Nintendo removed the "buy our console to play our games" requirement. People are more than willing to play Nintendo games, period; even if they bow out of future "console wars", their support will likely determine who ends up being the victor.
Looking even further, what if Nintendo did dissolve during the "bubble pop"? Again, the developers are still there; the leftover splinter groups (developers) can go to a third-party publisher and still churn out great games, and if they somehow manage to wrangle the rights to one of Nintendo's franchises they can definitely use the name to great effect (though misuse of the name will be met with very harsh disdain).
---
Video games probably aren't going anywhere, even in the event of the "bubble" popping; big budget games will go, but that'll be about it. Nintendo makes good games, even if they don't follow the fads; being relegated to a niche market again might not be the best situation, but Nintendo could very well be in the best position to survive (if not thrive) in it.
The strange thing is... by sticking to their (metaphorical) guns, Nintendo could very well be saving themselves from the risk of being caught up in the potential "video game bubble" which has been forming over the past decade or so. This isn't to imply that the video game industry could crash like the early 80s, just that the "bubble" could easily pop in the near future; when that happens, most of the developers and publishers will either take a major hit or dissolve entirely (a "crash" being when all of them dissolve). The preferred approach for most American corporations is to abandon ship before, such that they don't take a financial hit (loss of cash-flow being inevitable) while gaining the most benefit.
Now, stop and think for a moment. Where is the "bubble" most likely to pop first? The "fad" genres, of course; the quick cash-ins. These are always transient, so they'll vacate very quickly; whomever's caught in the downfall will likely go under. Does Nintendo really bother with these genres? Not really. They will likely face some financial issues (all will), but it won't be as sudden or as decimating as those who have invested heavily in the fad games.
---
Assuming that the popping of the "bubble" doesn't result in a total crash of the video game industry, all (surviving) developers and publishers will be focused on recovering and rebuilding the industry; let us also assume that Nintendo is among them.
What type of games will those which revive the industry as a whole? My guess is that another "fad genre" won't be doing so, especially since that's where most of the losses will likely be incurred (quite possibly due to players becoming fed up with obvious cash-in games); got to start small, and provide some incentive for players to come back for the next product. There's also a very good chance the "best" games which will revive the industry will be remembered as classics; they'll be damned good games people will remember fondly (and replay for decades to come), regardless of who makes them.
Beside the obvious history of Nintendo being one of the prime contributors to reviving the industry from the crash which happened in the early 80s, they've amassed quite a library of venerable classics over the years. If there are no fad genres to dictate what's going to be popular in the industry, players will most likely flock towards the genuinely better games.
Another interesting thing I've noticed over the past few years is Nintendo has been absorbing ("saving", one could say) some very notable developers; for example, Monolith Soft and Platinum Games. These smaller developers will continue to produce good games, regardless of who is publishing their games; and if saved from dissolution and treated well, they could definitely be appreciative of Nintendo. Also, makes one wonder if Nintendo is reading the writing on the wall...
---
The one valid issue is that Nintendo may be faced with the necessity of dropping their consoles; these will always be a high risk, even if they do provide some benefits. This could definitely pose an issue in the (near?) future...
... but what about the phenomenal first-party developers? If Nintendo cuts console development, these guys will still be around; if they become a "third-party" developer and move onto other platforms (including the PC), how will this "shake up" the status-quo with ease. Nintendo's flagship franchises are revered for their quality, and other publishers may find their effective dominance on non-Nintendo consoles being threatened simply because Nintendo removed the "buy our console to play our games" requirement. People are more than willing to play Nintendo games, period; even if they bow out of future "console wars", their support will likely determine who ends up being the victor.
Looking even further, what if Nintendo did dissolve during the "bubble pop"? Again, the developers are still there; the leftover splinter groups (developers) can go to a third-party publisher and still churn out great games, and if they somehow manage to wrangle the rights to one of Nintendo's franchises they can definitely use the name to great effect (though misuse of the name will be met with very harsh disdain).
---
Video games probably aren't going anywhere, even in the event of the "bubble" popping; big budget games will go, but that'll be about it. Nintendo makes good games, even if they don't follow the fads; being relegated to a niche market again might not be the best situation, but Nintendo could very well be in the best position to survive (if not thrive) in it.
because everyone treats nintendo with a double standard, they get harsher criticism but when EA does something repetitive they are killing the industry and when nintendo does it's charming and nostalgic(because they have been doing for the last 30 years)
A fair comparison, if only for the humor one can glean if they imagined the insults leveled at EA's repetitive offerings being offered to Nintendo instead:teebeeohh said:
"Ugh, Pokemon Beige and Teal? Whatever, ninten-bros. enjoy paying full-game price for your pokemon roster update!"
"Another Mario? Who else but ninten-bros could possibly enjoy the latest rainbow-colored turtle-murder fetishism simulator?"
On topic, pretty much the only "double standard" I've ever personally noticed against Nintendo is in the form of people who say that nintendo games are niche and repetitive, then in the same breath talk about how awesome it would be for nintendo's IP to be available on other systems.
I should qualify that this only happens with a handful of individuals, and always on the "joe everyman" level. I've never seen vitriol and bias of the degree OP described in any official capacity.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm probably the least impressed person in first party nintendo games on the planet, which makes me apathetic at best regarding the company. As such, it's possible I just never looked around for it.
Thing about the whole "Nintendo is totally going third party" rhetoric is that I think it comes from people remembering what happened with the Sega Dreamcast. Problem is that the Dreamcast wasn't a just a single failure- there was plenty of failure by Sega leading up to it.
For starters, Sega tried to prolong the life of the Genesis, their most successful system, with the Sega CD and the 32X. The 32X in particular was a bad move, since, IIRC, Sega's next system was already on its way. Then, Sega fumbled the Saturn's release by choosing to release it at E3-months before it was scheduled to- and simply not telling anybody until the reveal. This made the third party companies who had made games to be launch titles very upset. After the Saturn failed to perform to expectations (despite some decent games being on it)
Sega tried to one-up its competitors (Nintendo's N64 and Sony's Playstation) with the 128-bit Sega Dreamcast. By many accounts, it was a good system: first to be able to connect to the internet out of box, games considered classics to this day released for it, it even dabbled in motion control. Third party support, however, suffered, thanks to the bad blood Sega had accumulated with third party developers, and the system was really easy to pirate games for, and then the Playstation 2 came 'round. At first, it didn't seem like much of a challenge, as the system, IIRC, didn't have a very strong start. However, it's DVD player functionality really gave it a leg up, and as we all probably know, its library greatly expended, with a lot of quality games. And with systems from their rival Nintendo and the up-and-comer Microsoft, Sega decided that there was no longer any point in continuing to support the Dreamcast, or indeed, making any new consoles at all. And that was all she wrote.
With Nintendo, the Wii was a runaway success, and their handhelds never stopped selling. Their situation isn't stellar, but from my viewpoint, they're not hurting like Sega was.
For starters, Sega tried to prolong the life of the Genesis, their most successful system, with the Sega CD and the 32X. The 32X in particular was a bad move, since, IIRC, Sega's next system was already on its way. Then, Sega fumbled the Saturn's release by choosing to release it at E3-months before it was scheduled to- and simply not telling anybody until the reveal. This made the third party companies who had made games to be launch titles very upset. After the Saturn failed to perform to expectations (despite some decent games being on it)
Sega tried to one-up its competitors (Nintendo's N64 and Sony's Playstation) with the 128-bit Sega Dreamcast. By many accounts, it was a good system: first to be able to connect to the internet out of box, games considered classics to this day released for it, it even dabbled in motion control. Third party support, however, suffered, thanks to the bad blood Sega had accumulated with third party developers, and the system was really easy to pirate games for, and then the Playstation 2 came 'round. At first, it didn't seem like much of a challenge, as the system, IIRC, didn't have a very strong start. However, it's DVD player functionality really gave it a leg up, and as we all probably know, its library greatly expended, with a lot of quality games. And with systems from their rival Nintendo and the up-and-comer Microsoft, Sega decided that there was no longer any point in continuing to support the Dreamcast, or indeed, making any new consoles at all. And that was all she wrote.
With Nintendo, the Wii was a runaway success, and their handhelds never stopped selling. Their situation isn't stellar, but from my viewpoint, they're not hurting like Sega was.
Going to sound like a bad echo here, but yeah, I've never seen this double standard from journalists. Regular board posters here, and in places like kotaku, sure, but people are ready to pounce and crow about anything that even looks like it might be an oncoming trainwreck. People were predicting Microsoft crashing and burning after E3, people loved to talk about the PS3 failing miserably in its first year, and people were predicting the Gamecube and xbox failing utterly and forcing them out of the market.
It's not hatred of Nintendo, it's that the people are not so far removed from the days of the gladiatorial games, we salivate at the thought of seeing these monolithic companies injured and shedding blood. It is Schadenfreude in its purest form, and we care not whether they wear the symbols of the mighty N, S, or M, as long as they bleed all the same, we will share some satisfaction at the thought of them suffering.
Besides, most of the criticism is at the Wii U anyway, people shut up about the 3DS when it turned out to be more popular than the Vita and still held on to a respectable chunk of the market amidst the rise of smartphone games. The WiiU is genuinely struggling, will it knock Nintendo out of the console market? No, probably not, but we may see Nintendo cut support for it sooner than planned, maybe launch a new system a few years earlier than originally planned, or maybe something else, Nintendo won't be forced out of the business, they saved too much money when the Wii sold like crack to let a single disappointing console knock them out of the market, but it could force them to take action to either get a new console out in the next 5 years or so, or try and redesign the one they have.
As for their games, I used to love Nintendo games, but as time went on, I felt less and less enthusiastic about buying each installment. The sense of boredom and apathy grew with each new title, and the interesting spinoffs seem to all be dead at this point. When I was younger, I would have shanked the President of Nintendo to get a new Mario RPG title, but that series was dead before it even began. The somewhat worthwhile replacement in the Paper Mario series has pretty much been dead since the gamecube era, the Wii Super Paper Mario, was pretty much just another platformer, so that's another series down the drain. Metroid Prime seems to pretty much be dead and gone, and Metroid as a whole (even the 2D sidescrollers) are in a coma at this point after the abomination that was Other M. Star Fox is pretty much MIA as well, joining F-zero on life support. What's left at this point? Another Mario game? No matter how tight the gameplay, there's only so many goombas I can stomp before the artstyle and setting start to intrude on my fun, even the platforming just feels like I'm going through the motions at this point. Another Zelda game? They at least switch up the story, but it all starts to blur together at some point, the window dressing changes, but it still feels like I've done this all before. Pokemon? Same issue, here, I can tell you most of the story for any Pokemon game before it's even released, and I've never been interested in the competitive metagame, so all I'm left with is a dozen iterations of the same story with a roster update every once in awhile.
I don't begrudge people for buying Nintendo games, I don't even dislike the company itself, I'm just bored of them at this point, I have to work up some effort just to think about buying another Nintendo game, much less buying a console just to play them.
It's not hatred of Nintendo, it's that the people are not so far removed from the days of the gladiatorial games, we salivate at the thought of seeing these monolithic companies injured and shedding blood. It is Schadenfreude in its purest form, and we care not whether they wear the symbols of the mighty N, S, or M, as long as they bleed all the same, we will share some satisfaction at the thought of them suffering.
Besides, most of the criticism is at the Wii U anyway, people shut up about the 3DS when it turned out to be more popular than the Vita and still held on to a respectable chunk of the market amidst the rise of smartphone games. The WiiU is genuinely struggling, will it knock Nintendo out of the console market? No, probably not, but we may see Nintendo cut support for it sooner than planned, maybe launch a new system a few years earlier than originally planned, or maybe something else, Nintendo won't be forced out of the business, they saved too much money when the Wii sold like crack to let a single disappointing console knock them out of the market, but it could force them to take action to either get a new console out in the next 5 years or so, or try and redesign the one they have.
As for their games, I used to love Nintendo games, but as time went on, I felt less and less enthusiastic about buying each installment. The sense of boredom and apathy grew with each new title, and the interesting spinoffs seem to all be dead at this point. When I was younger, I would have shanked the President of Nintendo to get a new Mario RPG title, but that series was dead before it even began. The somewhat worthwhile replacement in the Paper Mario series has pretty much been dead since the gamecube era, the Wii Super Paper Mario, was pretty much just another platformer, so that's another series down the drain. Metroid Prime seems to pretty much be dead and gone, and Metroid as a whole (even the 2D sidescrollers) are in a coma at this point after the abomination that was Other M. Star Fox is pretty much MIA as well, joining F-zero on life support. What's left at this point? Another Mario game? No matter how tight the gameplay, there's only so many goombas I can stomp before the artstyle and setting start to intrude on my fun, even the platforming just feels like I'm going through the motions at this point. Another Zelda game? They at least switch up the story, but it all starts to blur together at some point, the window dressing changes, but it still feels like I've done this all before. Pokemon? Same issue, here, I can tell you most of the story for any Pokemon game before it's even released, and I've never been interested in the competitive metagame, so all I'm left with is a dozen iterations of the same story with a roster update every once in awhile.
I don't begrudge people for buying Nintendo games, I don't even dislike the company itself, I'm just bored of them at this point, I have to work up some effort just to think about buying another Nintendo game, much less buying a console just to play them.
OP appears to be a no-show on pages 2 and 3, and they seem to have abandoned this thread.
Which is a shame, because I'd like them to provide evidence of this:
You obviously didn't see the huge negative reaction to the Xbone launch.
Which is a shame, because I'd like them to provide evidence of this:
Which journalists? Some links would be nice.VG_Addict said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious here or not.VG_Addict said:
You obviously didn't see the huge negative reaction to the Xbone launch.
Well, ideally, we would have consoles that could sell themselves on more than just the games they have. Unfortunately, that is far from the current reality. Granted, Nintendo and Valve seem to be doing something slightly different compared to Sony and Microsoft, but as of right now, we really can't tell if they will actually be worthwhile. I mean, I'll probably still get a WiiU once I have the time and money, but most people don't really seem to be sold on its concept or games, and we're still waiting to see how the Steambox goes over.The Almighty Aardvark said:
I'm not saying we have to come up with the business strategy. I'm just saying we need to be willing to work with companies to find the best solution. The problem is that a lot of gamers, at least from what I've seen, tend to think that their way is the only way it should be, often ignoring the simple reality that if something isn't profitable for a company then it won't get to us. This becomes incredibly problematic when most gamers know little, if anything, about business and economics, much less the numbers of these companies, yet act as if they know everything. I don't have a problem with looking out for your own interests, but doing so at the expense of everyone else is hardly something I find admirable.
Of course, companies aren't entirely without fault here. They're excessively secretive and only partially concerned about cooperation at best, but I also do not think gamers are entirely without fault here.
Then why did you try to claim Nintendo blacklists review sites that refuse to give their games perfect scores without proof?Most people would ask you to back up your assertions.[/quote]Stavros Dimou said:
Well excuse me but I don't hold a record with everything Nintendo does in my house,I have better things to spend my time and my apartment's space with. But does that mean that I will stop talking about things I know and telling them ?
Really,your argument is so silly like if you told someone that human bodies consist of atoms, and he asked you to carry a microscope with you to show him that in fact atoms exist,or stop saying that atoms exist.[/quote]
Well if the only person you had ever heard the concept of from was an anonymous stranger on the internet who had no source to reference besides "I heard that once" then it would be very logical to be sceptical about it. As it is, the fact that you aren't on trial doesn't change the fact that you made a pretty serious allegation about a company (that they are secretly coercing reviewers into good press and scores) without any source at all, not even the name of the magazine in question so everyone here would be pretty wise to not believe you.
Also from earlier:
"Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?"
No they don't. Here are some first party Nintendo Metascores, none of which are positive:
[URL="{www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/wii-sports-club}" (title,target)]{Here}[/URL]
[URL="{www.metacritic.com/game/3ds/mario-party-island-tour}" (title,target)]{Here}[/URL]
[URL="{www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/wii-party-u}" (title,target)]{Here}[/URL]
[URL="{www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/wii-karaoke-u}" (title,target)]{Here}[/URL]
[URL="{www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/game-wario}" (title,target)]{Here}[/URL]
Personally I wouldn't say Nintendo get much hate. They're just ignored for the most part. The Wii U seems to have done very little to try and be something notable. It spent it's first year with most of its good games just being ports of games from the previous generation and it's probably the most confusing console overall. For a normal consumer, it's hard to know much about it, especially given the lack of advertising. Is it a whole new console? Is it just an upgraded version of the Wii (the way the PS3 Slim is an upgraded PS3)? How does that tablet thingy work? Do I still need Wii controllers? and so on. Also, a lot of those 100m Wii sales were people who basically treated it as a novelty toy. They got one for Christmas or a birthday and played a bit of Wii Sports and thought "oh that's pretty cool" and then it gathered dust for years after.
It was supposed to ignite a larger interest in gaming but it was more of a brief spark imo. My parents played a bit of Wii (despite never playing games before that) but they weren't going out and buying any extra games for it and I'd say that happened a lot. From a gamer's perspective, I loved the Wii U when it first came out and it was a good place to get games for the first 1-3 years but after that it was a wilderness. Skyward Sword was the last thing I played on my Wii and I remember not having played it for ages before that (previous time was for Mario Galaxy 2, and I thought the same thing then) so looking at the Wii U, I can't help imagining the same thing will happen again. There'll be a Zelda, Smash Bros, some Mario and maybe some Metroid but other than that, I just can't see much that shows Nintendo is turning this one around in a big way from last time.