Serebii Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Problem I have with this is I remember before PS4 and XB1 released and analysts were saying how Onlive and co are hurting consoles and it would be a struggle for the next generation of console. Less than a year later the PS4 has sold more than 10 mil with the potential to sell a whole lot more. To be fair, and this doesn't belong in this thread, PS4's sales were very top heavy. Their monthly sales, worldwide, if they were in any other generation, would be nothing to celebrate about. Adequate at best. Industry is in decline, but that has nothing to do with Onlive etc. Edited September 5, 2014 by Serebii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Dont think its as simple as that. I know spec wise the Vita offers more than a 3DS but the choice over the the new 3DS or a vita is a simple one for me simply down the software which I think has more value to the 3DS over a Vita. I'm not talking about perceived value, rather actual. When you consider what you're getting in the machine, even comparing it to £100 tablets it is very overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Inevitably this will draw hate from the Nintendo massive about these parts, but I agree. Their hardware is behind the curve and expensive for what it is, relative to the competition (£200 for a 3DS XL is pretty insane). I agree that hardware wise the Wii U is less powerful, obviously, but tbh I'm not really looking at it's hardware abilities and wishing for more. Having said that, a lower price should be the trade off here. I got the GC, if memory serves me well for £130. minimum wage, that worked out at about 26 hours work. Equivalent would be £150/£160 no? Totally possible really, with the right bundle, but not rrp. Having said that, how much did the GC memory cards cost back in the day? I guess the same applies to the 3ds, but Nintendo charge what they feel they can get away with. Also.. just a quick question - has anyone else noticed since the last system update, the gamepad seems to hold a connection better? I've gone from about 2.25 rooms to just over 4 rooms getting playable coverage. Edited September 5, 2014 by Pestneb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Gamecube was indeed a great price, £130 and it was in line with the competition (and better than PS2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 You kind-of took that out of context. He was going on about the cloud, and what he said implies MS and Sony have no place with dedicated hardware, too. Here's the full bit for context Also, he said that Candy Crush Saga was the best thing to happen to gaming in the same speech. He's clearly insane. Candy Crush has been an immensely positive thing for gaming. If you credit Nintendo for making games like Nintendogs, which are the definition of one trick wonders (ignore the pun) aimed at the casual/non gamer market, then you must credit Candy Crush, especially as it actually stimulates the brain in its challenge, albeit to a lesser extent than say Tetris. It's got people with no interest in buying a console into gaming. How is that an incredible achievement for gaming? People like my mum and my aunt, the latter of whom can't even play a game like Wii Sports, can play the game and enjoy it without having to spent money on a dedicated piece of hardware. That is a very positive thing and it stops corporations like Nintendo getting money off them with games like Brain Training/Nintendogs only for the console to then end up in the attic. No offense but it seems as though you have a very small circle of friends/don't get out much if you haven't seen the incredible effect that candy crush/temple run have had on those who don't want to buy a piece of dedicated hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Candy Crush has been an immensely positive thing for gaming. If you credit Nintendo for making games like Nintendogs, which are the definition of one trick wonders (ignore the pun) aimed at the casual/non gamer market, then you must credit Candy Crush, especially as it actually stimulates the brain in its challenge, albeit to a lesser extent than say Tetris. It's got people with no interest in buying a console into gaming. How is that an incredible achievement for gaming? People like my mum and my aunt, the latter of whom can't even play a game like Wii Sports, can play the game and enjoy it without having to spent money on a dedicated piece of hardware. That is a very positive thing and it stops corporations like Nintendo getting money off them with games like Brain Training/Nintendogs only for the console to then end up in the attic. No offense but it seems as though you have a very small circle of friends/don't get out much if you haven't seen the incredible effect that candy crush/temple run have had on those who don't want to buy a piece of dedicated hardware. I never said that Candy Crush hasn't had an effect or impact. What I said is that Pachter is insane for thinking it's the best thing to happen to gaming. Please don't twist my words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I never said that Candy Crush hasn't had an effect or impact. What I said is that Pachter is insane for thinking it's the best thing to happen to gaming. Please don't twist my words I never said you said that. You said he was crazy for saying it was 'the best thing to happen to gaming' and I explained why he is right. It, along with other mobile games, kept non traditional gamers playing games. He's not insane, he's stating the bloody obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Plus it's an opinion. There's no way of qualifying objectively what the best thing is, so let the man have his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Plus it's an opinion. There's no way of qualifying objectively what the best thing is, so let the man have his opinion. But...but... He's insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Plus it's an opinion. There's no way of qualifying objectively what the best thing is, so let the man have his opinion. I know, opinions can't be wrong. However, this opinion is wrong. I never said you said that. You said he was crazy for saying it was 'the best thing to happen to gaming' and I explained why he is right. It, along with other mobile games, kept non traditional gamers playing games. He's not insane, he's stating the bloody obvious. That doesn't make it the best thing to happen to gaming, especially as those gamers mostly don't migrate away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I know, opinions can't be wrong. However, this opinion is wrong. That doesn't make it the best thing to happen to gaming, especially as those gamers mostly don't migrate away from it. So it will only good for gaming if they give the company you like money... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 So it will only good for gaming if they give the company you like money... ? No. It's only good for the industry if it's not a self contained bit of growth, but rather spreads across all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 No. It's only good for the industry if it's not a self contained bit of growth, but rather spreads across all of it. It doesn't need to spread, that would defeat the point of it. It will only spread if the audience changes, but the whole point of any industry is to focus on what the consumer wants, not what it wants them to do. Unfortunately companies like Nintendo have burnt that audience a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I know, opinions can't be wrong. However, this opinion is wrong. You don't help yourself some times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 You don't help yourself some times. It's Pachter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It's a person with a strong opinion about something. While you may not agree with it, you'd think you'd be able to understand. He is just as welcome to his opinion as anyone else is. Saying "opinions can't be wrong but his are" reflects badly upon your ability to have a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Interesting quote from Pachter: “They are more than a decade behind the curve, and they are so insular that there is no desire internally to learn from others,” Pachter said. “Nintendo hardware goes away. There is a place for their content. There is no place for Nintendo hardware. Nobody cares. They will have to abandon hardware.” It hurts how true that is, particularly about how they refuse to learn from others Isn't Pachter the guy that has been spelling doom and gloom for Nintendo since the Gamecube days? The man is practically a broken clock: he was wrong the majority of the time, except for that one time he was right, simply because his point is always the same thing. I can't take him seriously. That said, Candy Crush isn't the best thing to happen to gaming: Tetris and Super Mario Bros are. No doubt Candy Crush was the right game at the right time, and it is well designed, but that's like saying the same thing about Angry Birds at the height of its popularity. And as for his actually-relevant-to-this-thread article, I think Nintendo has always been insular, and that has benefited them as much as it has hurt them, so I don't think that's much of an issue. I do think he has a point about the future of console gaming, but hey, the PS4 sold well. I still won't be surprised if Nintendo rethinks their hardware strategy for the next generation (or for the future in general), but whatever they come up with, it'll be their own thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It's Pachter...Oh so people can just use "It's Serebii" in future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liger05 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Isn't Pachter the guy that has been spelling doom and gloom for Nintendo since the Gamecube days? The man is practically a broken clock: he was wrong the majority of the time, except for that one time he was right, simply because his point is always the same thing. I can't take him seriously. That said, Candy Crush isn't the best thing to happen to gaming: Tetris and Super Mario Bros are. No doubt Candy Crush was the right game at the right time, and it is well designed, but that's like saying the same thing about Angry Birds at the height of its popularity. And as for his actually-relevant-to-this-thread article, I think Nintendo has always been insular, and that has benefited them as much as it has hurt them, so I don't think that's much of an issue. I do think he has a point about the future of console gaming, but hey, the PS4 sold well. I still won't be surprised if Nintendo rethinks their hardware strategy for the next generation (or for the future in general), but whatever they come up with, it'll be their own thing. Being so insular is an issue when the company continues to lose money and in the space of 1 generation has seen there market share on the home console front completely evaporate. They have a console which is odds on to be there worst ever commercially performing piece of hardware. Remaining so insular will do nothing to reverse this journey to decline and irrelevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Being so insular is an issue when the company continues to lose money and in the space of 1 generation has seen there market share on the home console front completely evaporate. They have a console which is odds on to be there worst ever commercially performing piece of hardware. Remaining so insular will do nothing to reverse this journey to decline and irrelevance. This comment could be easily talking about the Gamecube in 2005. They got out of that one by thinking outside of the box and doing their own thing. Insulism got them into a slump, and it got them out of the slump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 lol, they just joked on Gametrailers the next Wii console will be called Wii New :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Isn't Pachter the guy that has been spelling doom and gloom for Nintendo since the Gamecube days? The man is practically a broken clock: he was wrong the majority of the time, except for that one time he was right, simply because his point is always the same thing. I can't take him seriously. To be fair to the guy, aside from the Wii (which was pretty much an anomaly as it had a particular gimmick that caught people in a way we're unlikely to see often) he has a point. Nintendo home consoles have been on the decline since the N64 in terms of sales and third parties (again, Wii aside). And it became particularly apparent during the Gamecube era. On a side note, while the Wii delivered short terms success I'm of the belief that the Wii period ultimately didn't help Nintendo much in the long run. It was the first instance where they pretty much sacked the idea of graphically improving the console much, and they took a much more casual focus - completely distinguishing themselves from the core consoles for the first time. The success with that console also resulted in the Wii U - so the Wii pretty much doomed the next generation. If Nintendo hadn't done so well with the motion peripheral then I'm positive they wouldn't have pursued the Gamepad (their 'new' controller gimmick). Edited September 5, 2014 by Sheikah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzybee Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Hang on, someone expresses an opinion and now we're not allowed to say we think they're speaking shit (also an opinion by the way)? I wonder if it wasn't serebii if that comment would've been made.... I vote no... I agree with @Sheikah.... Broadly... Not specifically. I also think the Wii hasn't helped Nintendo at all. It highetened the already negative general view of it being family/kiddy/casual Third parties turned away even more, but worst of all is it's complete abandonment of the console for its last years, forcing gamers to move on, lose consumer faith, and just general be invisible for a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.C.G Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Fuck Pachter! :p He's an evil spectre who's loomed over Nintendo - and the industry - for far too long, very rarely he has a point, most of the time he's just profiteering by pissing and moaning about things, then trying to justify it somehow. 'Oh Nintendo should abandon the hardware market' Sod that! The day that Nintendo abandon hardware is the day that I stop buying games. It's pretty safe to say that I for one will be playing Nintendo games for a lonnnnnng time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Hang on, someone expresses an opinion and now we're not allowed to say we think they're speaking shit (also an opinion by the way)? I wonder if it wasn't serebii if that comment would've been made.... I vote no... Serebii's opinion was badly worded. Very much so. That's all, really, as I share his view on Pachter, and no one's ragging on me. To be fair to the guy, aside from the Wii (which was pretty much an anomaly as it had a particular gimmick that caught people in a way we're unlikely to see often) he has a point. Nintendo home consoles have been on the decline since the N64 in terms of sales and third parties (again, Wii aside). And it became particularly apparent during the Gamecube era. Y'know, chalking up the Wii as an "anomaly" kinda weakens the argument, as we're not talking about randomly generated numbers. Nintendo made the gimmick work, and marketed it well. The Wii sold well for years, that isn't happenstance (which is what statistical anomalies are supposed to be). There isn't even a clear correlation between the Gamecube and the Wii U, either, as each console had its own share of problems, and existed in different eras (though there are significant similarities, enough to make a valid comparison between the two consoles). Statistics aside, Pachter lacks creativity and follows what the majority of the industry is doing. First, the move to HD was the clear way to go, now he's calling for exclusive Cloud-based consoles, no doubt thanks to the rise of smartphone gaming. He never seems to consider individual companies or their respective strengths and weaknesses, he lacks foresight. So, even if it sounds like he has a point, I assure you: it is entirely by accident. On a side note, while the Wii delivered short terms success I'm of the belief that the Wii period ultimately didn't help Nintendo much in the long run. It was the first instance where they pretty much sacked the idea of graphically improving the console much, and they took a much more casual focus - completely distinguishing themselves from the core consoles for the first time. The success with that console also resulted in the Wii U - so the Wii pretty much doomed the next generation. If Nintendo hadn't done so well with the motion peripheral then I'm positive they wouldn't have pursued the Gamepad (their 'new' controller gimmick). I agree with Sheikah.... Broadly... Not specifically. I also think the Wii hasn't helped Nintendo at all. It highetened the already negative general view of it being family/kiddy/casual Third parties turned away even more, but worst of all is it's complete abandonment of the console for its last years, forcing gamers to move on, lose consumer faith, and just general be invisible for a couple of years. I'm more of the opinion that the Wii proved that Nintendo can think outside of the box. Had they continued doing what they were doing with the Cube, they would be a much smaller company nowadays. Nintendo adapted to its difficulties at the time, a quality that any successful company should have, and is now in a position to potentially do the same. It kept them in the game, which is exactly what they needed. The family/kiddy/casual image was already there, the Wii didn't worsen it (though it did create the term "casual" ) I don't think the Wii U gamepad was that severe a blow, Sheikah. It didn't help with selling the console, but it was no Virtual Boy or Mega CD. The Wii U is not Nintendo's "long run" by itself, either. It's a "middle run" at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts