It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Do you want Nintendo to die?(180 posts)(180 posts)
(180 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 19, 2013
avatar
zavlin: I'll say this much: i'd like to see nintendo get smarter about their digital shops.
Would you care to elaborate?
Posted May 19, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: I don't agree with that. I actually can't see how the NSMB is being released over and over again if we have only one NSMB for each platform. Yes, just take a look into it: There's one for the NDS, one for the Wii, one for the 3DS and one for the Wii U. There are 4 Gears of War games and 4 Halos on the Xbox 360 alone for fuck's sake, yet no one complains.

How many 2D Mario games are there on home consoles since Super Mario World on the SNES? Only 2: NSMB Wii and NSMB Wii U, and we'll probably not see another 2D Mario game until the next-gen portables and consoles.

The only reason why people complain about NSMB getting "milked" by Nintendo is because of the fact that NSMB was released on the 3DS and the Wii U at the same time, without realizing that these are different platforms.
Gears of War and Halo are different beasts altogether. As you said, they've always been rather samey, so you can't can't point to the fact as a downturn in standards because it never had a standard for changing things up in the first place. Mario, on the other hand, not so much. As you pointed out yourself (and as did I in my previous post), every main Mario game, from the original Super Mario Bros on the NES right up to Galaxy is radically different from the last. Each game does something almost drastically new, yet always does it extremely well. That's what made Mario such a fantastic and almost universally loved franchise. But we've not seen a Mario game that did something so new like that since Galaxy, and that was back in 2008. These New Super Mario Bros games most certainly are not. Not one of them is even close to the same standard of both innovation and excellent execution. Really now, it's been five years and not even an announcement of a possible worthy successor to Galaxy has been heard.

You honestly are going to say with a straight face that the series isn't stagnating?
avatar
Neobr10: Zelda is another example. Windwaker, Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, Skyward Swords are completely different games on their own rights. Now the new Zelda for the 3DS will use a top-down view like the first ones. The last Zelda game nwith a top-down view was 4 Swords if i recall correctly, which was released almost 10 years ago.
I'll wholeheartedly admit, Zelda is still a good franchise. I enjoyed the hell of or Spirit Tracks (which, incidentally, was in fact the most recent top-down Zelda), and though I haven't played Skyward Sword, for what it's worth I hear that it's actually good despite the Wii-mote controls. That said, the new 3DS Zelda is called "Link to the Past 2", so the series could well go the way of Mario. It's certainly not a sure thing at this point, don't get me wrong, but it is a possibility all the same and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Post edited May 19, 2013 by Hesusio
Posted May 19, 2013
avatar
Hesusio: I'll wholeheartedly admit, Zelda is still a good franchise. I enjoyed the hell of or Spirit Tracks (which, incidentally, was in fact the most recent top-down Zelda), and though I haven't played Skyward Sword, for what it's worth I hear that it's actually good despite the Wii-mote controls. That said, the new 3DS Zelda is called "Link to the Past 2", so the series could well go the way of Mario. It's certainly not a sure thing at this point, don't get me wrong, but it is a possibility all the same and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Don't forget that the second Zelda game was called Zelda II. By that I just mean you can't place much significance on the name LttP2 (which may also just be a placeholder name). Oh yes, and I'd certainly recommend Skyward Sword. There are some bad things about it, but the controls aren't one of them (unlike Twilight Princess's they're not tacked on and are really responsive).
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: I still dream about the day Sega makes it's triumphant return to the hardware market.
If it's anything approaching Dreamcast or Genesis levels of awesome, yes please!
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Hesusio: I'll wholeheartedly admit, Zelda is still a good franchise. I enjoyed the hell of or Spirit Tracks (which, incidentally, was in fact the most recent top-down Zelda), and though I haven't played Skyward Sword, for what it's worth I hear that it's actually good despite the Wii-mote controls. That said, the new 3DS Zelda is called "Link to the Past 2", so the series could well go the way of Mario. It's certainly not a sure thing at this point, don't get me wrong, but it is a possibility all the same and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Don't forget that the second Zelda game was called Zelda II. By that I just mean you can't place much significance on the name LttP2 (which may also just be a placeholder name). Oh yes, and I'd certainly recommend Skyward Sword. There are some bad things about it, but the controls aren't one of them (unlike Twilight Princess's they're not tacked on and are really responsive).
I know it's hardly a certainty that Zelda is stagnating, I was just saying that with the way Nintendo is going, it wouldn't surprise me if it did. I really hope it doesn't, because it's my favourite Nintendo series but if it did it would be rather par for the course for Nintendo.
Posted May 20, 2013
LOL
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
timppu: But I am not suggesting that PC games should appear only on Windows platform. I'm fine with them appearing also on Linux, Mac, or whichever platform the game maker feels it makes sense to release the game on.
avatar
Neobr10: But that's my point: i was trying to bust the myth that the PC is an "agnostic" platform. It isn't. You are tied to one single OS (a really expensive one by the way) in order to run most games and apps. If not even the PC is an "agnostic" platform, what's the point in moaning about having different consoles?
I explained later that there is difference in making a game platform exclusive because it doesn't make sense to publish in on some other, dying platform because you'd only lose money there, or because one is just trying to push their own platform.

You can't realistically demand game publishers to release their games on all possible platforms, but you can demand them not to artificially restrict some games to only one platform even though the game would sell great on some other platform too, just because they don't want that other platform succeed. Even GOG released Witcher games on Steam (but then comparing free service accounts to HW units or Oses which cost money are apples to oranges anyway; having to install several clients and use several accounts for gaming is just an extra inconvenience, not an extra money hole).

avatar
timppu: I am not demanding that game publishers should release all their games on all possible platforms, even the ones where they would certainly lose money. I am mostly against platform (or even service, at least if it is a pay service) exclusivity in order to push that platform.
avatar
Neobr10: What's the difference between games that are not released on a platform because of business decisions and games that are not released due to exclusivity deals? For the consumer, there is NONE. The only difference is the intention behind the decision to not make the game available.
Explained above. For the common end-user, one of the motives sounds justified, the other does not.

From the end-user point of view it is better that the HW and service providers compete by who offers the best HW unit or service that offers the best bang for the buck, without dirty practices like restricting the content appearing on competing platforms due to exclusivity deals. Only then it is easier for the end-user to say "no" if some platform or service tries to e.g. push their lackluster platform/service (e.g. with always-online DRM).

Real world example: DVD vs Circuit City DIVX. CC DIVX was supposed to be the replacement for DVD players, having embedded DRM system. Some big movie studios were the big backers of the system, and IIRC they were already in the mode that they wouldn't release their movies to DVD, but only CC DIVX.

So, they were trying to push an inferior replacement for DVD to homes, by restricting content only to DIVX CC, and not by making that competing platform _better_ for the end-customer than DVD. And you seem to be promoting such practices.

Now, if the movie studios would have simply released their movies on both DVD and DIVX CC, and then let the market decide which they want to embrace, that I would have found completely fine. If the consumers would have still opted for DIVX CC, then oh well, they get what they deserve.

avatar
Neobr10: Hehe, Netflix is now making their own exclusive series as well.
And I am against such practices, if that didn't come clear already.

But still, it is not as bad as if you had to buy a separate Netflix TV or mediabox just to watch those series.
Post edited May 20, 2013 by timppu
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Hesusio: Really now, it's been five years and not even an announcement of a possible worthy successor to Galaxy has been heard.

You honestly are going to say with a straight face that the series isn't stagnating?
But it really isn't stagnating. The gap between Super Mario Sunshine (which is still the best 3D Mario game in my opinion, but i seem to be the minority) and Mario Galaxy was also around 5 years. The only difference now is that they have filled the gap with some 2D Mario games. I can't see how the series is stagnating because of it.

Nintendo has announced in a Nintendo Direct that the new 3D Mario game and the new Mario Kart will be released later this year and more details will be available at E3. Unless the new game is Mario Galaxy 3, i will stand firm by my opinion that the series hasn't stagnated.

avatar
Hesusio: That said, the new 3DS Zelda is called "Link to the Past 2", so the series could well go the way of Mario. It's certainly not a sure thing at this point, don't get me wrong, but it is a possibility all the same and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
But i can't see the issue there. What's the problem with releasing a direct sequel every once in a while? I think this is the first time in the Zelda franchise that a direct sequel is released after Zelda 2 (and Zelda 2 was a completely diffent game).

And even then, from what i've seen in the trailers there is enough variety to the gameplay. The dungeons will have multiple levels with a real sense of height through the 3D effect in a way no other top-down Zelda game has done before.
Post edited May 20, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
timppu: From the end-user point of view it is better that the HW and service providers compete by who offers the best HW unit or service that offers the best bang for the buck, without dirty practices like restricting the content appearing on competing platforms due to exclusivity deals.
You have valid reasons to be against exclusivity deals, but how is it a dirty practice? Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony make their own games, they're free to release it in whatever platform they want. It's not a dirty practice, it's common business. Is Microsoft dirty for not releasing their games on Linux and Mac, their competitors? What you're proposing here is beyond logic. Why would a company make an expensive game for it's competitors? Why would anyone make products for it's competitors? Yeah, it sucks, but that's capitalism for you.

avatar
timppu: Only then it is easier for the end-user to say "no" if some platform or service tries to e.g. push their lackluster platform/service (e.g. with always-online DRM).
We can still say "no" to bad business practices. I've said it before and i'll say it again: if the next-Xbox does have always-online i'll not buy it. And i love the Halo franchise, i have every Halo ever released and i've finished every single one of them. It'll be a loss for me, but you know what? I can live without Halo, there are hundreds of games in the market, i don't have to play every single game ever released, i don't even have time for it. But i'm not buying a console with BS limitations.
Posted May 20, 2013
Urgg i am not a bad person to wish bad to others, i did enjoy the NES and Super NES very much, i own a DS and DS XL, and a Wii with select games i enjoy but...

YES! I do want Nintendo to go bankrupt now.. Because the 3ds is having obnoxious success over the Vita, and because the Wii U is not worthy of NextGen brand, with the soon same old titles remade..

Sorry, Big N! As if my opinion have any weight over your sharky marketing anyways!
Post edited May 20, 2013 by koima57
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: Do PC games work on anything other than Windows? No, except for some of them. What about the mobile market? The iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7 each has it's own exclusive games. So no, it's not limited to the console market.
Standard APIs for many high-level languages are supported across Windows/Mac OS/Linux.

And the APIs that are OS-specific are a very small area of the code.

Games were mostly released for Windows, because Windows had an overwhelming market share (over 95%).

With Mac OS's share increasing, you see more and more games being released for Windows/Mac and also Linux.

Compared to that, the APIs for consoles were drastically more different when I worked with them.

The mobile market is converging toward a more streamlined development interface (many use the same OS and support web apps).

I'm not too worried about the future of the mobile market, but I'm pretty certain that 10-20 years from now, the console market will still be a fragmented mess.

avatar
Neobr10: I'd rather have more competition, to be honest. I still dream about the day Sega makes it's triumphant return to the hardware market.
PC manufacturers are consumer beneficial competition.

Console market would be consumer beneficial competition if you bought your console based on the hardware.

Instead, the console manufacturers slice the available games into console exclusive sub-sets.

You think that if it was a genuine consumer beneficial competition, people would buy several consoles that do the same thing just to play all the games they want to play?

avatar
Neobr10: You're not being realistic here. Consoles have been sold at a loss since the PS1 era. The fact is that new hardware is expensive, especially in the first years of production. Why is cutting-edge hardware necessary? Because you need to convince adopters of the last generation to upgrade and buy the new consoles, and in order to achieve that the processing power needs to be a great step away from the previous generation.
Companies sell generic computers (PCs, Macs) at a profit and people buy them.

The mobile market is a bit less healthy (they push the phones through plans), but tablets are sold at a profit and people buy them.

Consoles can't be sold at a profit, because what they offer is inferior: a machine that only does a subset of what other machines (PCs, Macs, even tablets) can do and whose main selling point are the exclusive games they acquired.

"But <Insert console here> offers a cool peripheral!"

Yes and they could have made that peripheral for a more generic computing machine at a fraction of the price.

The core of what they are selling is still crap.

avatar
Neobr10: If you don't invest in cutting-edge technology you take the risk of stagnating in the market. Isn't this the biggest complaint about the Wii?
I actually have a bit more respect for the wii than for other consoles (and they actually sold the wiis at a profit which is the healthier model for an hardware manufacturer), because they innovated, but like I said above, they could have released what made the wii as a peripheral for a more generic computing machine.

avatar
Neobr10: And there's no way to sell an expensive console. History has already proven that expensive consoles do not sell (the 3DO, the CDI, the Saturn and the terrible launch of the PS3 are examples of that).
Exactly. People go "why would I buy that crap when I could buy an actual computer for a comparable price?".

avatar
Neobr10: It probably is the future, but since i can't predict stuff i'm talking about the present.
Yes, well, a lot of the messes we are in now is because people don't have a vision about the future.

The present is an infinitely small time slice that will soon be the past.

The future is an infinity of upcoming presents.

Worrying about the future pays off.
Post edited May 20, 2013 by Magnitus
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Darvond: Would you care to elaborate?
the main problem being that their digital shops are system bound, rather than account bound. Imagine for a second if gog said "okay any games you buy on gog you can only play on 1 computer. If that computer dies you lose all your downloads forever. If you have two computers on next to eachother you can transfer your whole account to the other computer, but you can only do this a total of 5 times, ever."
Thats what nintendo does.
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Darvond: Would you care to elaborate?
avatar
zavlin: the main problem being that their digital shops are system bound, rather than account bound. Imagine for a second if gog said "okay any games you buy on gog you can only play on 1 computer. If that computer dies you lose all your downloads forever. If you have two computers on next to eachother you can transfer your whole account to the other computer, but you can only do this a total of 5 times, ever."
Thats what nintendo does.
Can't you transfer the account from a 3ds to a 3dsxl?

Also transferring Wii to WiiU stuffs IIRC. Not sure. Don't have a WiiU. Or a XL.
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Luisfius: Can't you transfer the account from a 3ds to a 3dsxl?
only if you have both systems in the same room and they are able to be turned on. And only a total of 5 times ever.
If your system gets stolen, you have to call up nintendo and beg for some store credit.
Post edited May 20, 2013 by zavlin
Posted May 20, 2013
avatar
Luisfius: Can't you transfer the account from a 3ds to a 3dsxl?

Also transferring Wii to WiiU stuffs IIRC. Not sure. Don't have a WiiU. Or a XL.
Yes, you can transfer, they're the same kit, just one has weaker speakers, a bigger screen and no excuse for having better resolution.
avatar
Darvond: Would you care to elaborate?
avatar
zavlin: the main problem being that their digital shops are system bound, rather than account bound. Imagine for a second if gog said "okay any games you buy on gog you can only play on 1 computer. If that computer dies you lose all your downloads forever. If you have two computers on next to eachother you can transfer your whole account to the other computer, but you can only do this a total of 5 times, ever."
Thats what nintendo does.
Thank you. I knew exactly what they did, I just wanted this to be presented for others to see.
Post edited May 20, 2013 by Darvond
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Do you want Nintendo to die?(180 posts)(180 posts)
(180 posts)