Poll of the Day > Question for Video Game experts: How did Nintendo fall behind?

Topic List	Page List: 1
pringles448 04/21/17 2:27:22 AM #1:	This is not one of those Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft topics so please don't interpret it as such. I'm just honestly curious about what happened to the company. Back in the 80s after NES, Nintendo completely dominated and ruled the gaming world. They were more dominant in the video game industry than Wal-mart is when it comes to retailers. Then SNES came out and their dominance just increased. Pretty much the only video game company that most general people even knew about was Nintendo. Sega tried to compete but went to get completely curbstomped. So in terms of revenue and market share, how in the hell did they fall so fast in the past few decades and how did Sony overtake them so drastically? Nintendo has fallen so badly that they aren't even among the top 5 video game publishing companies anymore and its marketshare is multiple times less than Sony. Nintendo had all the advantages and they pretty much held a monopoly on the console gaming world. It's supposed to be impossible for another company to overtake you when you have those advantages. No fast food restaurant will ever surpass McDonalds, no wrestling company will ever overtake WWE, no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart, etc. <cite>pringles448 posted [p:877609982] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>This is not one of those Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft topics so please don't interpret it as such. I'm just honestly curious about what happened to the company. Back in the 80s after NES, Nintendo completely dominated and ruled the gaming world. They were more dominant in the video game industry than Wal-mart is when it comes to retailers. Then SNES came out and their dominance just increased. Pretty much the only video game company that most general people even knew about was Nintendo. Sega tried to compete but went to get completely curbstomped. So in terms of revenue and market share, how in the hell did they fall so fast in the past few decades and how did Sony overtake them so drastically? Nintendo has fallen so badly that they aren't even among the top 5 video game publishing companies anymore and its marketshare is multiple times less than Sony. Nintendo had all the advantages and they pretty much held a monopoly on the console gaming world. It's supposed to be impossible for another company to overtake you when you have those advantages. No fast food restaurant will ever surpass McDonalds, no wrestling company will ever overtake WWE, no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
T0ffee 04/21/17 2:28:29 AM #2:	Because Japan --- "Splashing water on a pervert is like putting lasers on a shark" - Shiho Shishido \| FC: 2707-2635-3369 \| IGN: Toffee (Moon) / Caramel (Sun) \| <cite>T0ffee posted [p:877610014] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Because Japan</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pringles448 04/21/17 2:29:05 AM #3:	T0ffee posted... Because Japan Elaborate please. Sony is also a Japanese company. <cite>pringles448 posted [p:877610026] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>T0ffee posted...</cite> <quote>Because Japan</quote> Elaborate please. Sony is also a Japanese company.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSlinja 04/21/17 2:41:26 AM #4:	problem is you are comparing this totally wrong, MCD can prepare the same big macs for 20 years and make bank, the games industry has to keep making all new products in order to thrive, in a risky enviroment like this its not hard to see how companies can throw huge success away, its happened many many times and will continue to happen in this industry Sony has played it safe this last decade to get where they are today, nintendo takes great risks which leads to amazing highs (wii) and amazing lows (wiiu). of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end, its all about a fine balance of safe, stable ideas and new system selling ideas, ninty banks on the ladder and sony makes a better balance of the 2 --- https://i.gyazo.com/77afa9eecd5b003c28202170864ed158.jpg <cite>TheSlinja posted [p:877610406] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>problem is you are comparing this totally wrong, MCD can prepare the same big macs for 20 years and make bank, the games industry has to keep making all new products in order to thrive, in a risky enviroment like this its not hard to see how companies can throw huge success away, its happened many many times and will continue to happen in this industry Sony has played it safe this last decade to get where they are today, nintendo takes great risks which leads to amazing highs (wii) and amazing lows (wiiu). of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end, its all about a fine balance of safe, stable ideas and new system selling ideas, ninty banks on the ladder and sony makes a better balance of the 2</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jamieyello3 04/21/17 2:55:16 AM #5:	Nintendo went wrong with their own general incompetence. Nintendo failed with the N64 because they had tiny storage. They learned nothing and did the same with the GameCube. They hit an unfilled cliche with the Wii and tried to do it again with the Wii U, but people had moved on to smartphones. The Wii U wasn't really cool enough to get people excited. The Switch is Nintendo taking everything and putting it together. I don't believe the Wii U failed because of lack of ips. I believe it was just a poor idea and people weren't excited for it. The Wii U had Smash, it never sold like the Switch. <cite>jamieyello3 posted [p:877610708] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Nintendo went wrong with their own general incompetence. Nintendo failed with the N64 because they had tiny storage. They learned nothing and did the same with the GameCube. They hit an unfilled cliche with the Wii and tried to do it again with the Wii U, but people had moved on to smartphones. The Wii U wasn't really cool enough to get people excited. The Switch is Nintendo taking everything and putting it together. I don't believe the Wii U failed because of lack of ips. I believe it was just a poor idea and people weren't excited for it. The Wii U had Smash, it never sold like the Switch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 04/21/17 3:00:09 AM #6:	Mostly, they got cocky. They were used to being dominant in the NES/SNES era because Sega wasn't a big enough competitor to win over third party developers, so they treated those partners as though being able to develop for Nintendo was a privilege. When the N64/PS1 era rolled around, Nintendo went with cartridges that were harder and more expensive to develop for, while Sony went with much less restrictive hardware, in addition to taking the reverse attitude of valuing third parties' contributions to their system's success. It meant a whole lot of developers jumped ship and started developing for PS1, especially when the PS1 managed a solid install base because of its technical superiority. The next generation, the PS2 got a head start on the generation to capitalize on that lead, plus the GC still was trickier to code for because of the non-standard discs, so Sony held on to the lead. Nintendo struck gold with the Wii by tapping into a massive new audience, but that surge didn't last because their decision to do something different still dissuaded third parties from supporting them. The attitude of "we're doing something different, so you guys should adapt to us" really doesn't fly when there are viable alternatives to developing for Nintendo, and as such, the Wii's support fizzled out as soon as shovelware minigame compilations stopped selling. And then the WiiU was a marketing disaster, with very poor promotion all around and an attempt to cash in on brand recognition that just confused people into thinking it was still the Wii. I don't actually think Nintendo's approach is as wrong these days as it was in the N64/GC era, particularly where pretty much everything's multiplat and available on PC and therefore traditional consoles are pointless. There's a fine line, however, between "we're doing something different, so you guys should adapt to us" and "we're doing something different to give you guys an excellent creative opportunity, and we'll support and encourage you as you explore your options in that regard." They do seem to have eased off on the "it's a privilege to develop for us" attitude, but it's still a trap they should be working to avoid. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:877610812] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Mostly, they got cocky. They were used to being dominant in the NES/SNES era because Sega wasn't a big enough competitor to win over third party developers, so they treated those partners as though being able to develop for Nintendo was a privilege. When the N64/PS1 era rolled around, Nintendo went with cartridges that were harder and more expensive to develop for, while Sony went with much less restrictive hardware, in addition to taking the reverse attitude of valuing third parties' contributions to their system's success. It meant a whole lot of developers jumped ship and started developing for PS1, especially when the PS1 managed a solid install base because of its technical superiority. The next generation, the PS2 got a head start on the generation to capitalize on that lead, plus the GC still was trickier to code for because of the non-standard discs, so Sony held on to the lead. Nintendo struck gold with the Wii by tapping into a massive new audience, but that surge didn't last because their decision to do something different still dissuaded third parties from supporting them. The attitude of "we're doing something different, so you guys should adapt to us" really doesn't fly when there are viable alternatives to developing for Nintendo, and as such, the Wii's support fizzled out as soon as shovelware minigame compilations stopped selling. And then the WiiU was a marketing disaster, with very poor promotion all around and an attempt to cash in on brand recognition that just confused people into thinking it was still the Wii. I don't actually think Nintendo's approach is as wrong these days as it was in the N64/GC era, particularly where pretty much everything's multiplat and available on PC and therefore traditional consoles are pointless. There's a fine line, however, between "we're doing something different, so you guys should adapt to us" and "we're doing something different to give you guys an excellent creative opportunity, and we'll support and encourage you as you explore your options in that regard." They do seem to have eased off on the "it's a privilege to develop for us" attitude, but it's still a trap they should be working to avoid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/21/17 4:35:09 AM #7:	Fallen behind in what way? If you mean total market share, there's not much they could do. Yes, they could have kept Sony out of the market for a little while but sooner or later somebody else would get into it, even if Sony didn't fly solo. They basically ran the market back when they had virtually no competition but, when others started to get into the market, they lost market share. As for total base, keep in mind that gaming as a whole was expanding heavily up until around the ps2/xbox/gc age and then the number of traditional gamers hasn't grown as rapidly since then. pringles448 posted... Then SNES came out and their dominance just increased. Well, no, because Sega gave them actual competition in terms of market share. Their base might have still been expanding as new gamers the market, but their market position was shared. The NES days was when the industry had basically bankrupted itself and the NES was more or less the only serious console. When Sony came onto the market, they got their system out well ahead of the N64 and they weren't nearly as stringent when it came to whose games could go on their system. The use of CDs was also cheaper and the technology that they used was supposedly easier to develop for. Plus Sony had a major advantage over every other competitor since it was a heavily moneyed company with deep pockets which had made that money from outside gaming. pringles448 posted... Nintendo has fallen so badly that they aren't even among the top 5 video game publishing companies anymore You're reading more into that than you should, considering that back when Nintendo was topping the charts it was first as a hardware company. They made tons of money off licensing rather than just publishing. pringles448 posted... It's supposed to be impossible for another company to overtake you when you have those advantages. It's literally never been impossible to overtake a company in the lead. Keep in mind that other companies had massive advantages before Nintendo came along. pringles448 posted... No fast food restaurant will ever surpass McDonalds, no wrestling company will ever overtake WWE, no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart, etc. First off, all of those claims are completely ridiculous unless you have a time machine and have seen the future (especially in the case of the WWE which is largely driven by Vince's genius and, once he's out of the equation, the company's future may not be as guaranteed. Other companies have survived multiple changes in leadership.). More importantly, EACH of those companies wasn't at the top of their respective game at one point. At one point, they were also the challenger. jamieyello3 posted... Nintendo failed with the N64 because they had tiny storage. They learned nothing and did the same with the GameCube. Not really an issue for the most part. And, in the case of the GC, it did have the same storage capability as other consoles because it could have gone multi-disc as well. More importantly, there's nothing inherently inferior when it comes to cartridges other than the expense. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877612761] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Fallen behind in what way? If you mean total market share, there's not much they could do. Yes, they could have kept Sony out of the market for a little while but sooner or later somebody else would get into it, even if Sony didn't fly solo. They basically ran the market back when they had virtually no competition but, when others started to get into the market, they lost market share. As for total base, keep in mind that gaming as a whole was expanding heavily up until around the ps2/xbox/gc age and then the number of traditional gamers hasn't grown as rapidly since then. <cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>Then SNES came out and their dominance just increased. </quote> Well, no, because Sega gave them actual competition in terms of market share. Their base might have still been expanding as new gamers the market, but their market position was shared. The NES days was when the industry had basically bankrupted itself and the NES was more or less the only serious console. When Sony came onto the market, they got their system out well ahead of the N64 and they weren't nearly as stringent when it came to whose games could go on their system. The use of CDs was also cheaper and the technology that they used was supposedly easier to develop for. Plus Sony had a major advantage over every other competitor since it was a heavily moneyed company with deep pockets which had made that money from outside gaming. <cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>Nintendo has fallen so badly that they aren't even among the top 5 video game publishing companies anymore </quote> You're reading more into that than you should, considering that back when Nintendo was topping the charts it was first as a hardware company. They made tons of money off licensing rather than just publishing. <cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>It's supposed to be impossible for another company to overtake you when you have those advantages.</quote> It's literally never been impossible to overtake a company in the lead. Keep in mind that other companies had massive advantages before Nintendo came along. <cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>No fast food restaurant will ever surpass McDonalds, no wrestling company will ever overtake WWE, no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart, etc.</quote> First off, all of those claims are completely ridiculous unless you have a time machine and have seen the future (especially in the case of the WWE which is largely driven by Vince's genius and, once he's out of the equation, the company's future may not be as guaranteed. Other companies have survived multiple changes in leadership.). More importantly, EACH of those companies wasn't at the top of their respective game at one point. At one point, they were also the challenger. <cite>jamieyello3 posted...</cite> <quote>Nintendo failed with the N64 because they had tiny storage. They learned nothing and did the same with the GameCube.</quote> Not really an issue for the most part. And, in the case of the GC, it did have the same storage capability as other consoles because it could have gone multi-disc as well. More importantly, there's nothing inherently inferior when it comes to cartridges other than the expense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
photographboy 04/21/17 5:25:09 AM #8:	I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only other thing to talk about is Nintendo's handheld line, which dominated from the GameBoy right up to the DS. Then smart phones happened with tons of cheap/free games and essentially whittled support for 3DS down to a more hardcore audience. The 3DS still sold very well (mainly thanks to Pokemon), but Nintendo's days of mobile dominance might also be over, hence their decision to unify console and mobile with the Switch (it was also to avoid having to support two platforms with games which is trickier now that games require so much work and resource to complete). It will be interesting to see what the future holds, so far the Switch seems to be doing very well... <cite>photographboy posted [p:877613727] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only other thing to talk about is Nintendo's handheld line, which dominated from the GameBoy right up to the DS. Then smart phones happened with tons of cheap/free games and essentially whittled support for 3DS down to a more hardcore audience. The 3DS still sold very well (mainly thanks to Pokemon), but Nintendo's days of mobile dominance might also be over, hence their decision to unify console and mobile with the Switch (it was also to avoid having to support two platforms with games which is trickier now that games require so much work and resource to complete). It will be interesting to see what the future holds, so far the Switch seems to be doing very well...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VeeVees 04/21/17 5:35:25 AM #9:	ps1 and 2 were just that good --- Rudy sucks <cite>VeeVees posted [p:877613910] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>ps1 and 2 were just that good</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 04/21/17 5:43:00 AM #10:	Sony joined at the right time with the right product and the right marketing. --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:877614041] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Sony joined at the right time with the right product and the right marketing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Abibde 04/21/17 5:55:39 AM #11:	photographboy posted... I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Correct. The arrogance of Nintendo during its NES heyday came back to bite the company. Not that I dislike Nintendo, but their market practices in the late '80s and early '90s made them no friends among third-party developers. --- -- I Abibde / Samuraiter Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002. <cite>I_Abibde posted [p:877614276] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>photographboy posted...</cite> <quote>I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head.</quote> Correct. The arrogance of Nintendo during its NES heyday came back to bite the company. Not that I dislike Nintendo, but their market practices in the late '80s and early '90s made them no friends among third-party developers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen 04/21/17 6:01:47 AM #12:	Since the N64 I would blame complacency. Willing to be the mobile handheld leader. Along with incompatince. In some cases not recognizing the power of the brand. Like so few NES Classics being made. --- Still waters run deep <cite>OneTimeBen posted [p:877614408] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Since the N64 I would blame complacency. Willing to be the mobile handheld leader. Along with incompatince. In some cases not recognizing the power of the brand. Like so few NES Classics being made.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCyborgNinja 04/21/17 6:57:08 AM #13:	Nintendo chose to do it their way rather than go with what the market wanted. This ended up with the N64 and the PS1. The GC prioritizing dumb things like GBA connectivity instead of a hardcore online push was idiocy (Mario Kart: Double Dash online would've single-handedly made a dent in the competition). Now they just pander to their legion of fanboys while coming up with new ways to fool casuals. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:877615507] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Nintendo chose to do it their way rather than go with what the market wanted. This ended up with the N64 and the PS1. The GC prioritizing dumb things like GBA connectivity instead of a hardcore online push was idiocy (Mario Kart: Double Dash online would've single-handedly made a dent in the competition). Now they just pander to their legion of fanboys while coming up with new ways to fool casuals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SinisterSlay 04/21/17 8:02:44 AM #14:	Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. Short answer? Games were being made that simply couldn't be downgraded enough to run on Nintendo hardware, and that's still the case today. --- He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence <cite>SinisterSlay posted [p:877617126] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. Short answer? Games were being made that simply couldn't be downgraded enough to run on Nintendo hardware, and that's still the case today.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
snacktimeguy 04/21/17 8:12:28 AM #15:	Too many gimmick consoles. --- http://i.imgur.com/sEXYtO1.jpg <cite>snacktimeguy posted [p:877617389] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Too many gimmick consoles.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen 04/21/17 8:22:26 AM #16:	SinisterSlay posted... Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. 30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct. --- Still waters run deep <cite>OneTimeBen posted [p:877617665] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper.</quote>30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen 04/21/17 8:25:14 AM #17:	So Nintendo made 20% profit per game and Sony made like 500%? --- Still waters run deep <cite>OneTimeBen posted [p:877617751] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>So Nintendo made 20% profit per game and Sony made like 500%?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SinisterSlay 04/21/17 9:01:48 AM #18:	OneTimeBen posted... SinisterSlay posted... Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. 30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct. It's not at all easy to look up. I'm trying though. I only remember they were crazy expensive. --- He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence <cite>SinisterSlay posted [p:877618796] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>OneTimeBen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper.</quote>30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct.</quote> It's not at all easy to look up. I'm trying though. I only remember they were crazy expensive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JOExHIGASHI 04/21/17 9:29:12 AM #19:	they hate 3rd party so 3rd party went to playstation now they want something completely unconventional --- YEA! <cite>JOExHIGASHI posted [p:877619728] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>they hate 3rd party so 3rd party went to playstation now they want something completely unconventional</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kukukupo 04/21/17 9:56:19 AM #20:	The real answer is the medium. Sony was using discs - and they were cheap as hell back then and offered large amounts of storage space. Sony rolled the dice on cheap medium even though it was vastly inferior to the cartridges. Gaming has pretty much sucked ever since. Your bloated load times, 10 splash screens, 2 hour tutorials, and 200 unskippable cut scenes are all due to the disk format. This is why you can go back and play an N64 and it is still great. PSX sucks because all the games are scratched up and you REALLY notice the load times now. <cite>kukukupo posted [p:877620752] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>The real answer is the medium. Sony was using discs - and they were cheap as hell back then and offered large amounts of storage space. Sony rolled the dice on cheap medium even though it was vastly inferior to the cartridges. Gaming has pretty much sucked ever since. Your bloated load times, 10 splash screens, 2 hour tutorials, and 200 unskippable cut scenes are all due to the disk format. This is why you can go back and play an N64 and it is still great. PSX sucks because all the games are scratched up and you REALLY notice the load times now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ernieforss 04/21/17 11:15:08 AM #21:	well lets get down to the real thing. Snes going to come out with a CD attachment like the Sega CD. they hired sony to make the drive and phillips to make the cds. Phillips made the cd-i and screwed them by taking mario and zelda on their platform. Right when they where going to annouce the Nintendo Play Station, nintendo said no to sony, because cost and loading time and i guess they just wanted to make a new machine and not an attachment. So they started on the Ultra 64, while sony release there released their $400 playstation. When the N64 came out it was $200. Around the time N64 came out CD technology was dropping down in price to fight with Nintendo cartridges. Also developers had to play nintendo a lot of money to make their games on to their cartridges while making a cd for sony because to get cheaper and cheaper as the tech goes down in price. cartridges depending on what size memory you wanted to use and if it needed a save function. While sony was just a 750 mb file. Third parties went with sony instead of nintendo. Then the downfall started. Games started to get better looking on the psx every year. While nintendo graphic and size didn't much improve compared to playstation. Final Fantasy 7 coming to Sony exclusive pretty much killed the system (i know it came to pc about a year or 6 months later), but pc still were crappy back in those days. --- I'm always 50% right all the time <cite>ernieforss posted [p:877624636] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>well lets get down to the real thing. Snes going to come out with a CD attachment like the Sega CD. they hired sony to make the drive and phillips to make the cds. Phillips made the cd-i and screwed them by taking mario and zelda on their platform. Right when they where going to annouce the Nintendo Play Station, nintendo said no to sony, because cost and loading time and i guess they just wanted to make a new machine and not an attachment. So they started on the Ultra 64, while sony release there released their $400 playstation. When the N64 came out it was $200. Around the time N64 came out CD technology was dropping down in price to fight with Nintendo cartridges. Also developers had to play nintendo a lot of money to make their games on to their cartridges while making a cd for sony because to get cheaper and cheaper as the tech goes down in price. cartridges depending on what size memory you wanted to use and if it needed a save function. While sony was just a 750 mb file. Third parties went with sony instead of nintendo. Then the downfall started. Games started to get better looking on the psx every year. While nintendo graphic and size didn't much improve compared to playstation. Final Fantasy 7 coming to Sony exclusive pretty much killed the system (i know it came to pc about a year or 6 months later), but pc still were crappy back in those days.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 04/21/17 3:56:37 PM #22:	OneTimeBen posted... SinisterSlay posted... Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. 30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct. It may be high, but not by that much. Carts were really, really expensive. There's a reason optical media has dominated for as long as it has. It's flagging now that games are just getting too big for optical read speeds (which is why installs are so common for the Xbone/PS4) and the price gap between BD's and comparable volumes of flash memory is shrinking, but the PS1's CD's were much, MUCH cheaper than the N64's carts. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:877640588] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>OneTimeBen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper.</quote>30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct.</quote> It may be high, but not by that much. Carts were really, really expensive. There's a reason optical media has dominated for as long as it has. It's flagging now that games are just getting too big for optical read speeds (which is why installs are so common for the Xbone/PS4) and the price gap between BD's and comparable volumes of flash memory is shrinking, but the PS1's CD's were much, MUCH cheaper than the N64's carts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkKirby2500 04/21/17 4:38:48 PM #23:	In a way they've always been behind. They still have the worst digital marketplace and online of every major console company. But the best answer would probably be because they won the lottery with the Wii, which was targeted at non gaming casuals rather than gamers, which started the whole obsession by various tech companies to forgo marketing to enthusiasts and focus their efforts strongly on trying to capture the casual market that had no interest in their products. But that didn't last, and most video game companies eventually realized the casual market had moved on (to smartphones) and weren't interested in consoles period anymore, and moved their efforts back to making products for gamers. Everyone except Nintendo. Nintendo desperately wanted lightning to strike twice for them and continued to focus their efforts on attempting to try and get the non gaming casuals to buy their products again long after everyone else had given up. The reason Sony got ahead is they realized the non gaming casual market for video games was gone first while Nintendo and Microsoft were still clawing at it hopelessly. Combined with Microsoft's former middle finger to gamers and clear focus on the non gaming casual market, Sony made a game changing decision a few years back to focus their E3 presentation solely at gamers, and grabbed almost the whole market while Nintendo and Microsoft were treating gamers like second class citizens because they were after what they considered the cake (non gaming casuals) and thought of gamers as only the cherry on top. --- 1. The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. 2. They're all complacent sheeple. <==]-<(-_o)>-[==> <cite>DarkKirby2500 posted [p:877643095] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>In a way they've always been behind. They still have the worst digital marketplace and online of every major console company. But the best answer would probably be because they won the lottery with the Wii, which was targeted at non gaming casuals rather than gamers, which started the whole obsession by various tech companies to forgo marketing to enthusiasts and focus their efforts strongly on trying to capture the casual market that had no interest in their products. But that didn't last, and most video game companies eventually realized the casual market had moved on (to smartphones) and weren't interested in consoles period anymore, and moved their efforts back to making products for gamers. Everyone except Nintendo. Nintendo desperately wanted lightning to strike twice for them and continued to focus their efforts on attempting to try and get the non gaming casuals to buy their products again long after everyone else had given up. The reason Sony got ahead is they realized the non gaming casual market for video games was gone first while Nintendo and Microsoft were still clawing at it hopelessly. Combined with Microsoft's former middle finger to gamers and clear focus on the non gaming casual market, Sony made a game changing decision a few years back to focus their E3 presentation solely at gamers, and grabbed almost the whole market while Nintendo and Microsoft were treating gamers like second class citizens because they were after what they considered the cake (non gaming casuals) and thought of gamers as only the cherry on top.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ernieforss 04/21/17 5:24:55 PM #24:	^i guess you are right. i mean the turbo graphic was a better machine than the nes. and neo geo was a true arcade console for your home. Nes was crappier tech compared to those two machine, but those two machine cost a lot. Neo Geo was $1000. Turbo Graphic was $200, when nes was $100 - $150 packed in with 2 controller and 2 games and a light gun. --- I'm always 50% right all the time <cite>ernieforss posted [p:877645872] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>^i guess you are right. i mean the turbo graphic was a better machine than the nes. and neo geo was a true arcade console for your home. Nes was crappier tech compared to those two machine, but those two machine cost a lot. Neo Geo was $1000. Turbo Graphic was $200, when nes was $100 - $150 packed in with 2 controller and 2 games and a light gun.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ernieforss 04/21/17 5:27:27 PM #25:	remeber the TurboExpress. You can take your turbo graphx games on the go. it's liek the nomad before the nomad came out. AKA it's like the switch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboExpress --- I'm always 50% right all the time <cite>ernieforss posted [p:877646005] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>remeber the TurboExpress. You can take your turbo graphx games on the go. it's liek the nomad before the nomad came out. AKA it's like the switch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboExpress</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
synth_real 04/21/17 5:46:42 PM #26:	It's because if you're not a fan of Mario, Legend of Zelda, Smash Bros, or Pokemon, there's no good reason to own a Nintendo system these days. When's the last time people got excited for a Nintendo game that isn't one of those four? --- "I'm the straightest guy on this board. I'm so straight that I watch gay porn." - Smarkil <cite>synth_real posted [p:877647134] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>It's because if you're not a fan of Mario, Legend of Zelda, Smash Bros, or Pokemon, there's no good reason to own a Nintendo system these days. When's the last time people got excited for a Nintendo game that isn't one of those four?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pringles448 04/21/17 5:49:16 PM #27:	TheSlinja posted... of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end Elon Musk would disagree with you as Tesla is now financially the #1 automobile company in the world. <cite>pringles448 posted [p:877647302] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheSlinja posted...</cite> <quote>of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end</quote> Elon Musk would disagree with you as Tesla is now financially the #1 automobile company in the world.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCyborgNinja 04/21/17 5:50:00 PM #28:	SinisterSlay posted... OneTimeBen posted... SinisterSlay posted... Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. 30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct. It's not at all easy to look up. I'm trying though. I only remember they were crazy expensive. I have heard they cost $20-30. Then Nintendo's licensing fee on top. Ultimately, even if they were $5 each, the storage capacity to cost ratio would still be horrible compared to the PS1. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:877647364] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OneTimeBen posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>Real answer? Power gap. The rule in game development is to build for the weakest machine that's popular. The trouble was that graphics was all the rage, and big rpgs. The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper.</quote>30 bucks to produce a cartridge seems a bit much. No doubt it was more expensive then a disk but that can't be correct.</quote> It's not at all easy to look up. I'm trying though. I only remember they were crazy expensive.</quote> I have heard they cost $20-30. Then Nintendo's licensing fee on top. Ultimately, even if they were $5 each, the storage capacity to cost ratio would still be horrible compared to the PS1.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/21/17 6:49:23 PM #29:	photographboy posted... I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only other thing to talk about is Nintendo's handheld line, which dominated from the GameBoy right up to the DS. Then smart phones happened with tons of cheap/free games and essentially whittled support for 3DS down to a more hardcore audience. The 3DS still sold very well (mainly thanks to Pokemon), but Nintendo's days of mobile dominance might also be over, hence their decision to unify console and mobile with the Switch (it was also to avoid having to support two platforms with games which is trickier now that games require so much work and resource to complete). It will be interesting to see what the future holds, so far the Switch seems to be doing very well... Mobile is really a different market. There's very overlap between mobile gamers and actual gamers, especially since mobile games generally lack in depth. And 3DS sales were a lot more than Pokemon. Mario Kart 7 sold 15m~ to Pokemon XY's combined 16m. And while slots 3 & 4 are also Pokemon games (which have an advantage since people buy copies of each version), two more Super Mario games are right behind them. And even Animal Crossing sold over 10m. As for the Switch, it's not technically meant to replace the 3DS nor could it, given the expense. Nintendo's handhelds have always partly dominated thanks to their lower price points which made them appealing to parents and casual gamers. TheCyborgNinja posted... Nintendo chose to do it their way rather than go with what the market wanted. This ended up with the N64 and the PS1. Which is a silly hindsight argument. SinisterSlay posted... The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper. Carts were nowhere near that expensive. They were more expensive than CDs, but the differential wasn't as huge. And the storage capacity was actually better than that for a N64 cart as well. iirc, a few games like RE2 on the N64 was 512MB. SinisterSlay posted... Short answer? Games were being made that simply couldn't be downgraded enough to run on Nintendo hardware, and that's still the case today. Also not even remotely true, especially since the N64 had a better processor than the psx and the ps2 was by far the weakest system in its generation, far behind the xbox and gc. kukukupo posted... The real answer is the medium. Sony was using discs - and they were cheap as hell back then and offered large amounts of storage space. Sony rolled the dice on cheap medium even though it was vastly inferior to the cartridges. Gaming has pretty much sucked ever since. Your bloated load times, 10 splash screens, 2 hour tutorials, and 200 unskippable cut scenes are all due to the disk format. This is why you can go back and play an N64 and it is still great. PSX sucks because all the games are scratched up and you REALLY notice the load times now. Yes, the CDs and hardware resulted in just massive performance issues but, because of the third-party support and willingness to carry more mature titles, the psx had an edge. ernieforss posted... Final Fantasy 7 coming to Sony exclusive pretty much killed the system (i know it came to pc about a year or 6 months later), but pc still were crappy back in those days. Worth noting that FFVII came very close to appearing on the N64. Plus you're vastly overrating FFVII in general. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877650741] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>photographboy posted...</cite> <quote>I think _AdjI_ has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only other thing to talk about is Nintendo's handheld line, which dominated from the GameBoy right up to the DS. Then smart phones happened with tons of cheap/free games and essentially whittled support for 3DS down to a more hardcore audience. The 3DS still sold very well (mainly thanks to Pokemon), but Nintendo's days of mobile dominance might also be over, hence their decision to unify console and mobile with the Switch (it was also to avoid having to support two platforms with games which is trickier now that games require so much work and resource to complete). It will be interesting to see what the future holds, so far the Switch seems to be doing very well...</quote> Mobile is really a different market. There's very overlap between mobile gamers and actual gamers, especially since mobile games generally lack in depth. And 3DS sales were a lot more than Pokemon. Mario Kart 7 sold 15m~ to Pokemon XY's combined 16m. And while slots 3 & 4 are also Pokemon games (which have an advantage since people buy copies of each version), two more Super Mario games are right behind them. And even Animal Crossing sold over 10m. As for the Switch, it's not technically meant to replace the 3DS nor could it, given the expense. Nintendo's handhelds have always partly dominated thanks to their lower price points which made them appealing to parents and casual gamers. <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted...</cite> <quote>Nintendo chose to do it their way rather than go with what the market wanted. This ended up with the N64 and the PS1. </quote> Which is a silly hindsight argument. <cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>The n64 carts were a premium if you wanted 128mb. Most were 32 and 64mb. For like $30 a cart. Meanwhile sony used regular discs, 700mb for about 10 cents each. That's a lot more game, graphics, for a lot cheaper.</quote> Carts were nowhere near that expensive. They were more expensive than CDs, but the differential wasn't as huge. And the storage capacity was actually better than that for a N64 cart as well. iirc, a few games like RE2 on the N64 was 512MB. <cite>SinisterSlay posted...</cite> <quote>Short answer? Games were being made that simply couldn't be downgraded enough to run on Nintendo hardware, and that's still the case today.</quote> Also not even remotely true, especially since the N64 had a better processor than the psx and the ps2 was by far the weakest system in its generation, far behind the xbox and gc. <cite>kukukupo posted...</cite> <quote>The real answer is the medium. Sony was using discs - and they were cheap as hell back then and offered large amounts of storage space. Sony rolled the dice on cheap medium even though it was vastly inferior to the cartridges. Gaming has pretty much sucked ever since. Your bloated load times, 10 splash screens, 2 hour tutorials, and 200 unskippable cut scenes are all due to the disk format. This is why you can go back and play an N64 and it is still great. PSX sucks because all the games are scratched up and you REALLY notice the load times now.</quote> Yes, the CDs and hardware resulted in just massive performance issues but, because of the third-party support and willingness to carry more mature titles, the psx had an edge. <cite>ernieforss posted...</cite> <quote>Final Fantasy 7 coming to Sony exclusive pretty much killed the system (i know it came to pc about a year or 6 months later), but pc still were crappy back in those days.</quote> Worth noting that FFVII came very close to appearing on the N64. Plus you're vastly overrating FFVII in general.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SinisterSlay 04/21/17 7:29:07 PM #30:	Zeus posted... Carts were nowhere near that expensive. They were more expensive than CDs, but the differential wasn't as huge. And the storage capacity was actually better than that for a N64 cart as well. iirc, a few games like RE2 on the N64 was 512MB. RE2 was 64mb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64#Graphics Zeus posted... Also not even remotely true, especially since the N64 had a better processor than the psx and the ps2 was by far the weakest system in its generation, far behind the xbox and gc. Not exactly true, but hard to measure. The n64 had a lot of strange shit going on and required devs to write customs hardware level code to take advantage of. The ps1 used an API, making development much easier, and cheaper. That combined with literally 10 times more space for pennies, made the difference. --- He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence <cite>SinisterSlay posted [p:877652796] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote> Carts were nowhere near that expensive. They were more expensive than CDs, but the differential wasn't as huge. And the storage capacity was actually better than that for a N64 cart as well. iirc, a few games like RE2 on the N64 was 512MB.</quote> RE2 was 64mb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64#Graphics <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Also not even remotely true, especially since the N64 had a better processor than the psx and the ps2 was by far the weakest system in its generation, far behind the xbox and gc. </quote> Not exactly true, but hard to measure. The n64 had a lot of strange shit going on and required devs to write customs hardware level code to take advantage of. The ps1 used an API, making development much easier, and cheaper. That combined with literally 10 times more space for pennies, made the difference.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/21/17 8:34:52 PM #31:	pringles448 posted... TheSlinja posted... of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end Elon Musk would disagree with you as Tesla is now financially the #1 automobile company in the world. Tesla requires massive government subsidies to sell its cars (in the form of huge tax rebates), so it's not exactly in a strong position. Otherwise, what does your statement actually even mean? It's not one of the highest in terms of revenue -- which is a reasonable metric for success -- nor is it large in terms of market share. Right now, Tesla is a novelty brand more for the wealthy than anything. synth_real posted... It's because if you're not a fan of Mario, Legend of Zelda, Smash Bros, or Pokemon, there's no good reason to own a Nintendo system these days. When's the last time people got excited for a Nintendo game that isn't one of those four? I bought a 3DS for KIU. Granted, I might have eventually gotten it for Pokemon, but it wasn't the primary concern since they didn't have a new one at the time. And my decision to buy a Wii had nothing to do with any of the above. And there are countless exciting games to come out for systems not named any of those four, which included No More Heroes and MadWorld for the Wii. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877656208] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheSlinja posted...</cite> <quote>of course anyone would tell you the safe giys win out in the end</quote> Elon Musk would disagree with you as Tesla is now financially the #1 automobile company in the world.</quote> Tesla requires massive government subsidies to sell its cars (in the form of huge tax rebates), so it's not exactly in a strong position. Otherwise, what does your statement actually even mean? It's not one of the highest in terms of revenue -- which is a reasonable metric for success -- nor is it large in terms of market share. Right now, Tesla is a novelty brand more for the wealthy than anything. <cite>synth_real posted...</cite> <quote>It's because if you're not a fan of Mario, Legend of Zelda, Smash Bros, or Pokemon, there's no good reason to own a Nintendo system these days. When's the last time people got excited for a Nintendo game that isn't one of those four?</quote> I bought a 3DS for KIU. Granted, I might have eventually gotten it for Pokemon, but it wasn't the primary concern since they didn't have a new one at the time. And my decision to buy a Wii had nothing to do with any of the above. And there are countless exciting games to come out for systems not named any of those four, which included No More Heroes and MadWorld for the Wii.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/21/17 9:00:36 PM #32:	pringles448 posted... This is not one of those Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft topics so please don't interpret it as such. I'm just honestly curious about what happened to the company. Back in the 80s after NES, Nintendo completely dominated and ruled the gaming world. They were more dominant in the video game industry than Wal-mart is when it comes to retailers. The difference is that Nintendo wasn't anything like Wal-Mart in market capitalization. They were far and away the market leader on hardware and software... in the very narrow market of home consoles and basically nothing else. That's what tends to be forgotten - the video game industry today was nothing like it was back then, in size and scope. It wasn't bigger than Hollywood. It was an emerging market, almost a cottage industry. That's when Nintendo ruled the market. I wouldn't even say that Nintendo so much fell as much as went from creating the conversation in a narrow market, to trying to survive in a hugely-expanded market with two companies that have the market capitalization comparable to entire countries. Basically Nintendo didn't fall behind, but the market completely changed once Sony entered it. It wasn't just Nintendo fending off small-time companies anymore. They were up against big business with a near-bottomless amount of money to throw down. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:877657432] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>This is not one of those Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft topics so please don't interpret it as such. I'm just honestly curious about what happened to the company. Back in the 80s after NES, Nintendo completely dominated and ruled the gaming world. They were more dominant in the video game industry than Wal-mart is when it comes to retailers.</quote> The difference is that Nintendo wasn't anything like Wal-Mart in market capitalization. They were far and away the market leader on hardware and software... in the very narrow market of home consoles and basically nothing else. That's what tends to be forgotten - the video game industry today was nothing like it was back then, in size and scope. It wasn't bigger than Hollywood. It was an emerging market, almost a cottage industry. That's when Nintendo ruled the market. I wouldn't even say that Nintendo so much fell as much as went from creating the conversation in a narrow market, to trying to survive in a hugely-expanded market with two companies that have the market capitalization comparable to entire countries. Basically Nintendo didn't fall behind, but the market completely changed once Sony entered it. It wasn't just Nintendo fending off small-time companies anymore. They were up against big business with a near-bottomless amount of money to throw down.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sahuagin 04/21/17 9:33:43 PM #33:	they're obsessed with novelty instead of good games. or put another way, they're obsessed with hardware innovation instead of software (game) innovation. the problem is, hardware is peaking, more or less. now is the time to go full-on with software innovation, but you need a powerful enough system to do it with, and you need to promote games and game development. stop wasting time and money on hardware R&D and focus on software. we should be drowning in a Nintendo sea of gaming innovation, which is what the SNES was like and why it was so good, but that sure isn't how things are now... --- *The truth basks in scrutiny.* http://i.imgur.com/GMouTGs.jpg http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png <cite>Sahuagin posted [p:877658962] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>they're obsessed with novelty instead of good games. or put another way, they're obsessed with hardware innovation instead of software (game) innovation. the problem is, hardware is peaking, more or less. now is the time to go full-on with software innovation, but you need a powerful enough system to do it with, and you need to promote games and game development. stop wasting time and money on hardware R&D and focus on software. we should be drowning in a Nintendo sea of gaming innovation, which is what the SNES was like and why it was so good, but that sure isn't how things are now...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Fierce_Deity_08 04/21/17 9:43:55 PM #34:	More recently, creating artificial scarcity on both Amiibo and systems. That compared with retailer exclusives is very bad. --- Official Fierce Deity in my own mind. GT: OnikaraStar, PSN: Onikara, NNID: OnikaraStar <cite>Fierce_Deity_08 posted [p:877659431] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>More recently, creating artificial scarcity on both Amiibo and systems. That compared with retailer exclusives is very bad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/25/17 11:55:50 PM #35:	Sahuagin posted... they're obsessed with novelty instead of good games. or put another way, they're obsessed with hardware innovation instead of software (game) innovation. the problem is, hardware is peaking, more or less. now is the time to go full-on with software innovation, but you need a powerful enough system to do it with, and you need to promote games and game development. stop wasting time and money on hardware R&D and focus on software. we should be drowning in a Nintendo sea of gaming innovation, which is what the SNES was like and why it was so good, but that sure isn't how things are now... You don't need a ton of tech to have good games. In fact, the tech race is generally a race to the bottom where bloated graphical budgets take away from good gameplay. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877912398] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sahuagin posted...</cite> <quote>they're obsessed with novelty instead of good games. or put another way, they're obsessed with hardware innovation instead of software (game) innovation. the problem is, hardware is peaking, more or less. now is the time to go full-on with software innovation, but you need a powerful enough system to do it with, and you need to promote games and game development. stop wasting time and money on hardware R&D and focus on software. we should be drowning in a Nintendo sea of gaming innovation, which is what the SNES was like and why it was so good, but that sure isn't how things are now...</quote> You don't need a ton of tech to have good games. In fact, the tech race is generally a race to the bottom where bloated graphical budgets take away from good gameplay.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sahuagin 04/26/17 12:05:15 AM #36:	Zeus posted... You don't need a ton of tech to have good games. In fact, the tech race is generally a race to the bottom where bloated graphical budgets take away from good gameplay. well, you need enough processing power so that every time the dev tries to do something interesting and innovative it doesn't just end up bogging the whole system down. a lot of games from the last gen are designed from start to finish around performance bottlenecks, with every single area fine-tuned to death just so that it'll run. (ex: doom 3 VS doom 2016) --- *The truth basks in scrutiny.* http://i.imgur.com/GMouTGs.jpg http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png <cite>Sahuagin posted [p:877912894] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>You don't need a ton of tech to have good games. In fact, the tech race is generally a race to the bottom where bloated graphical budgets take away from good gameplay.</quote> well, you need enough processing power so that every time the dev tries to do something interesting and innovative it doesn't just end up bogging the whole system down. a lot of games from the last gen are designed from start to finish around performance bottlenecks, with every single area fine-tuned to death just so that it'll run. (ex: doom 3 VS doom 2016)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 04/26/17 12:40:08 AM #37:	I look at it this way. The GameCube was a great system with a great library of games. The GBA connection thing was kind of neat too. Though also kind of a hassle for gamer that didn't play portable that much. Fortunately there's the GameBoy Player. Then you had the DS. It was backward compatible with all the previous GameBoy cartridges, but didn't support the GameCube connectivity feature. Then the DSi, and the DS Lite, and the 3DS. They were announcing new models before the previous one they announced had even been released. Consumers had no idea what Nintendo was doing. Neither did Nintendo apparently. Remember the 3 pillars? On the other side you had the Wii. It was backward compatible with GameCube. Did not have a GameBoy Player like option. And the Wiimotes were awkward to use. This actually seemed like a downgrade from the GameCube. Next was the WiiU, which most people thought was a peripheral for the Wii and not a new system. Meanwhile other companies are sticking with what they know work. There's the connect and Move to compete with the Wii but when they fail to catch on at least you can still use the system without them. Playstations were too expensive to build and were being sold at a loss, but they had had a steadily growing library of games. Microsoft had made a disastrous move, but they still had 3rd party developers. Additionally, Playstations and Xbox are always in stock. Nintendo has consistently and intentionally shorted it's own supply lines. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:877914671] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>I look at it this way. The GameCube was a great system with a great library of games. The GBA connection thing was kind of neat too. Though also kind of a hassle for gamer that didn't play portable that much. Fortunately there's the GameBoy Player. Then you had the DS. It was backward compatible with all the previous GameBoy cartridges, but didn't support the GameCube connectivity feature. Then the DSi, and the DS Lite, and the 3DS. They were announcing new models before the previous one they announced had even been released. Consumers had no idea what Nintendo was doing. Neither did Nintendo apparently. Remember the 3 pillars? On the other side you had the Wii. It was backward compatible with GameCube. Did not have a GameBoy Player like option. And the Wiimotes were awkward to use. This actually seemed like a downgrade from the GameCube. Next was the WiiU, which most people thought was a peripheral for the Wii and not a new system. Meanwhile other companies are sticking with what they know work. There's the connect and Move to compete with the Wii but when they fail to catch on at least you can still use the system without them. Playstations were too expensive to build and were being sold at a loss, but they had had a steadily growing library of games. Microsoft had made a disastrous move, but they still had 3rd party developers. Additionally, Playstations and Xbox are always in stock. Nintendo has consistently and intentionally shorted it's own supply lines.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SpeedDemon20 04/26/17 12:45:01 AM #38:	Friend Codes --- http://orig14.deviantart.net/59f8/f/2009/047/4/9/rylai_crestfall_by_eyue.jpg Crystal Maiden... gal could break your heart in a thousand pieces. -Rucks <cite>SpeedDemon20 posted [p:877914882] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Friend Codes</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/26/17 6:06:37 PM #39:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Then you had the DS. It was backward compatible with all the previous GameBoy cartridges, but didn't support the GameCube connectivity feature. Then the DSi, and the DS Lite, and the 3DS. They were announcing new models before the previous one they announced had even been released. Worth noting that the DS had connectivity with the Wii, such as with PBR. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Additionally, Playstations and Xbox are always in stock. Nintendo has consistently and intentionally shorted it's own supply lines. They weren't "always in stock" at launch and again, where's the proof that Nintendo has intentionally shorted its supply? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877961261] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Then you had the DS. It was backward compatible with all the previous GameBoy cartridges, but didn't support the GameCube connectivity feature. Then the DSi, and the DS Lite, and the 3DS. They were announcing new models before the previous one they announced had even been released. </quote> Worth noting that the DS had connectivity with the Wii, such as with PBR. <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote> Additionally, Playstations and Xbox are always in stock. Nintendo has consistently and intentionally shorted it's own supply lines.</quote> They weren't "always in stock" at launch and again, where's the proof that Nintendo has intentionally shorted its supply?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Golden Road 04/26/17 6:30:31 PM #40:	pringles448 posted... no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart Remember when K-mart thought that? --- Who's your favorite character from "Bend It Like Beckham"? And you can't say Beckham. <cite>Golden Road posted [p:877962717] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart</quote> Remember when K-mart thought that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 04/26/17 8:54:33 PM #41:	Golden Road posted... pringles448 posted... no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart Remember when K-mart thought that? Yeah, whenever somebody makes an assertion like that I just have to laugh. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:877971138] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote><cite>Golden Road posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pringles448 posted...</cite> <quote>no retailer will ever overtake Wal-mart</quote> Remember when K-mart thought that?</quote> Yeah, whenever somebody makes an assertion like that I just have to laugh.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 04/26/17 9:20:30 PM #42:	Sega never really competed well vs nintendo, although there where plenty of very good sega games, and I of course owned all of both companies systems. Nintendo specifically dominated though in platforming games and RPG games compared to sega. But then sony came along and even the ps1 had a zillion more platform and rpgs games then nintendo (and just so many good games over all it was insane). The playstation one was like a tier above nintendo right from the start, and it won a ton of people over. Since many people only bought one system, that already hurt nintendo big time. But then came the ps2....and yeah, as good as the psone was....and as many good games as there was for that system, the playstation 2 blew it away. The N64 at least could compete in some world with the original playstation, if only because it had so many people that where still loyal to nintendo, but there was hardly any decent RPGs for the N64, and while Super mario 64 was quite good, there was not a ton of good platformers either. But the playstation 2 went up against the gamecube (released a year later or so), and I believe that was the real death knoll of Nintendo. It made a minor comeback with the Wii because it was geared more towards using the wii remote (playstation had a similar remote but was hardly used). The Wii had a bunch of family games and at least it had some decent RPGs and platforms. But by then the ps2 had already destroyed the gamecube, almost obliterating it into the ground as far as choice of games, number of games, quality of games etc. It was largely a new family oriented audience that went with the Wii (or players who buy all systems like me). I got the Wii U eventually, but not for years after it was released, and I still regret it. I only played a few games on the system, and honestly should have saved the money and just gotten a switch (wouldn't have missed much at all). Meanwhile the ps3 is another great system with tons of good games, possibly rivaling the ps2 in many ways. I still have tons of games that would be fun to play on both systems that I own but never got around to playing. The ps4 has not been as great in my opinion, with many of the good games out for it available on the PC, but I still have enough to make the system worth owning. Things are changing though with pc ports being so common, making it less important to have a primary gaming system anymore. The switch is really going to have to pull out some serious game (heh) to compete at this point, and a mario game or 2 (kart and platformer) is not going to be enough. The need to have more then one gaming system is quickly evaporating as more and more is available on pc or cross platform. Nintendo sadly is not going to work as most peoples only gaming system, and I think with costs going up etc, more and more people will stick to just one system soon (besides computers of course). --- Proud member of the Arv The Great is great fan club!!! Join today by putting it in your sig. <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:877972575] in Question f... [t:75262265]...</cite> <quote>Sega never really competed well vs nintendo, although there where plenty of very good sega games, and I of course owned all of both companies systems. Nintendo specifically dominated though in platforming games and RPG games compared to sega. But then sony came along and even the ps1 had a zillion more platform and rpgs games then nintendo (and just so many good games over all it was insane). The playstation one was like a tier above nintendo right from the start, and it won a ton of people over. Since many people only bought one system, that already hurt nintendo big time. But then came the ps2....and yeah, as good as the psone was....and as many good games as there was for that system, the playstation 2 blew it away. The N64 at least could compete in some world with the original playstation, if only because it had so many people that where still loyal to nintendo, but there was hardly any decent RPGs for the N64, and while Super mario 64 was quite good, there was not a ton of good platformers either. But the playstation 2 went up against the gamecube (released a year later or so), and I believe that was the real death knoll of Nintendo. It made a minor comeback with the Wii because it was geared more towards using the wii remote (playstation had a similar remote but was hardly used). The Wii had a bunch of family games and at least it had some decent RPGs and platforms. But by then the ps2 had already destroyed the gamecube, almost obliterating it into the ground as far as choice of games, number of games, quality of games etc. It was largely a new family oriented audience that went with the Wii (or players who buy all systems like me). I got the Wii U eventually, but not for years after it was released, and I still regret it. I only played a few games on the system, and honestly should have saved the money and just gotten a switch (wouldn't have missed much at all). Meanwhile the ps3 is another great system with tons of good games, possibly rivaling the ps2 in many ways. I still have tons of games that would be fun to play on both systems that I own but never got around to playing. The ps4 has not been as great in my opinion, with many of the good games out for it available on the PC, but I still have enough to make the system worth owning. Things are changing though with pc ports being so common, making it less important to have a primary gaming system anymore. The switch is really going to have to pull out some serious game (heh) to compete at this point, and a mario game or 2 (kart and platformer) is not going to be enough. The need to have more then one gaming system is quickly evaporating as more and more is available on pc or cross platform. Nintendo sadly is not going to work as most peoples only gaming system, and I think with costs going up etc, more and more people will stick to just one system soon (besides computers of course).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Question for Video Game experts: How did Nintendo fall behind? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Question for Video Game experts: How did Nintendo fall behind?