Anyway, the vitriol towards Nintendo takes me by surprise primarily because from any objective point of view, Nintendo has been running laps around its competition this generation. No! Stop! Spare me the Casual/Hardcore gamer argument a moment and give me a sec! Look at it from a business angle and you'll see my point.
Had Nintendo attempted to release an equivalent system to the 360 or the PS3 they likely would be exclusively software producers by now. For years, the PS3 and the 360 lost money on every system sold. Now, backed my Microsoft and Sony, this was a (somewhat) viable option... they could afford to throw away money on consoles because their real business was Windows and DVD players respectively. Had the 360 and PS3 been products of companies that were restricted to their Video Game products, (and if Nintendo had attempted to follow suit) we likely would have ended up with another Video Game crash like the one that ended the age of Atari.
First, Microsoft has been making money off of sales of the 360 for quite some time, and would've been making money off of console sales for even longer if they hadn't been so concerned with making a profit off of console sales in the first place (and thus ended up with the RROD). But that's beside the point. The two previous paragraphs of your post are based on a fundamental misunderstanding, a flawed premise. One that I see a lot. I tire of saying this:
LOSING MONEY ON CONSOLE PRODUCTION AND A CONSOLE BEING UNPROFITTABLE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
You think the 360 and the PS3 are unprofittable for the respective companies? Why do you think they're in the console business? As a hobby? I assure you they make money for their parent companies, and these companies have got a really sweet deal!
Most of their games are produced by OTHER COMPANIES, so OTHER PEOPLE spend THEIR MONEY on producing it. Microsoft and Sony say, "Yeah, we'll allow it to run on our console," and get paid HUGE amounts of money for licensing. All while doing next to nothing, at no risk to themselves.
No risk + no effort = profit
Their investment is in the console, not the game, and that's a pretty safe bet. So please, spare me the "Sony and Microsoft lose money on their consoles but Nintendo doesn't," schpiel, because it's just not true.
I think there's room for everyone in the console pool, but what bugs me about Nintendo's behavior is this. Contrary to your fallacious argument that Microsoft and Sony would've caused a video game crash if left to their own devices (despite somehow being able to stay in the market even WITH the obviously awesome Nintendo still here), I feel that Nintendo is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that lead to the LAST video game crash.
Cheap consoles that "every family could afford" (i.e. are cheap enough to buy, play once, and leave in the corner, causing unrealistic software sales projections)?
CHECK!
Little to no quality control over third party development houses?
CHECK!
A flood of titles so massive it's next to impossible for the casual consumer (i.e. no one reading this) to differentiate between the sweet and the slop?
CHECK! and how!
So I'm not worried because Nintendo isn't "Hardcore". I just lost a considerable portion of my life getting Master of Galaxies on Mario Galaxy 2! I'm worried because I think their behavior is dangerous for the business.
RatheMcGrath said:
Instead, Nintendo produced the Wii primarily through the use of Gamecube technology. The very first Wii that sold produced a profit
Only if you exclude
1) R&D for the motion control technology
2) Defense of the 3 (!) major lawsuits that resulted from alleged patent infringement
3) Aesthetic design budget
4) etc.
I assure you. If they had developed it, produced one and sold it, it would not be a profit, so don't compound your economic misunderstanding with hyperbole.
RatheMcGrath said:
and the system sold like hotcakes. Yeah, the graphics did not match what was being produced on the PS3 and 360, but seriously, graphifile.
spelled "graphophile"
RatheMcGrath said:
How many of you who didn't enjoy motion control games would have liked them if the graphics had been better? The games either worked or they didn't, and I'll be the first to say that 3rd party games for the Wii have been a disappointment. Of course Nintendo has done them well (what else would you expect from Nintendo?) and so it makes you wonder what kind of future of the Kinect and the Move will be, given that the most accomplished publisher of Motion Control games won't be making games for them.
The most accomplished publisher of GAMES isn't making games for either console, but I still like them okay. I get the feeling that if developers take the tehcnology seriously, I'll enjoy third party motion control games for the 360 and PS3
A LOT more than third party motion control games for the Wii, just like I enjoy third party GAMES IN GENERAL for the 360 and PS3
A LOT more than third party games for the Wii now.
RatheMcGrath said:
I think the reason I keep being intrigued by Nintendo is that they have consistently taken risks with their technology. They are console innovators, experimenting with the way we play games, beyond endless one-upmanship with CPU's and graphics chips. Occasionally that has bitten them (Virtual Boy, anyone?) but mostly they have made very good on their innovations.
Okay, that's just not true. Until the Wii, the history of Nintendo is not one of experimentation and innovation. I'll leave their well-discussed software franchise mining out of this discussion, and focus on hardware. Over the course of 2 console generations (N64 and GCN) they lost over half their market share at least partially because of their refusal to abandon a proprietary media format. Sony brought us the first viable CD game console (other than PC, of course) while Nintendo clung to cartridges like a child holding on to a security blanket. Even with the GCN they refused to get the point, with those infuriating tiny little discs. Once they joined the party that everyone else had already started, SURPRISE, they win the console market back.
Their successes with consoles (handheld, too) has always been the result of being the least expensive, the most difficult to break, and the most child-friendly (including the reason for the GBA's success... battery life). Their failures have always been associated with wild-eyed innovation. Power glove, virtual boy, R.O.B. They learned this lesson years ago, which is why they've been THE MOST conservative console company in the world for the past few decades (at least until the 3DSi. We'll see how that works out)
RatheMcGrath said:
Now I agree that motion-control has about petered out for precision gaming. We want more precise controls for most of our games. That said, I think the Wii or an equivalent will be in production for basically forever, because as a "pick-up and play" style of toy, it has been an overwhelming success.
What's next? Dunno. Maybe the combined success of the Wii and various incarnations of the DS will give Nintendo the base it needs to push the technology envelope again, and a new super-console is on the horizon. Whatever happens they're sure to do it with the professionalism and acumen that has defined the company since their early days. They are very, very good at what they do.
Which, all in all, makes it very hard to say that they suck with any kind of integrity.
They will not push the envelope again, but you can keep on dreaming, dreamer.
I'll answer your question for you, though. The reason adults who play games don't like Nintendo is the same reason adults who like movies don't like the new Veggie Tales movies.
Nintendo, for the most part, is not in the business of catering to us. They make a few for us, but they've decided that video games are toys, so they will design them as such.
They make toys. You said it. I didn't.
I don't think they suck. I think they're very good at what they do, but what they do is ignore me as a consumer. Anything they make that I enjoy is a complete coincidence.
I seriously doubt you (or anyone) will read all of this, but I've made my points, so I'll let the interwebz do with it as they may.
