Yeah... that would look great in a living room... NOT!
Revolution = "paradigm shift"
- Thread starter one
- Start date
- Status
Forget the living room, they've lost that already. Unless they go with the other functions that Sony and MS is going to include, Nintendo videogame only mindset, will not win them the living room.
Though they should make it portable so it can be dragged easily enough into the living room.
V3 said:
Well then we both know what kind of market share they can expect if they stop targetting the living room. Not like they ever did anyway, and they're still ok, so i guess, on second thought, could happen. 8)
No ?
Hmm i guess it was sony then that revived the console industry from deaths door in the early 80s ?
Oh wait it wastn' , it was nintendo that took a huge risk going into a market that was considered dead the year before .
Nintendo is about huge risks , I would say its hte other two companys that aren't about risk .
jvd said:
Yeah, jvd, in the 80s. And after they did that, kudos to the, they got stuck there.
Wunderchu said:
Well then i guess we can mention all the companies that "took a risk" ever in the history of Videogame Playing Humans. I mean, Sega entering the business was a risk for them. Sony too, MS too, Matsushita, bloody Nokia and many others.
None of them had it easy, and most of them failed at one point.
Judging "risk" is almost like the argument about judging "success", i.e. what is a valid comparison? Dollars? Then Sony wins for Cell hands down. Innovation for basic platforms? Then I'd have to give that to Nintendo (DS, Virtual Boy, etc). It's not so cut and dry imo.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
jvd said:
Shigeru Miyamoto said a few years ago that Nintendo is a risk taking company. When they wouldn't take risks anymore, they would cease to exist according to him.
Evil_Cloud said:
He also said Mario would grow up.
I like to define risky as a move where you gamble a big part of your company´s future and rentability, in order to get certain benefits. Those can include marketshare or market relevance.
Now that I established the context, I don´t think Nintendo has ever done anything risky, at least nothing that wasn´t very flawed in its concept. All I can think of is Virtual Boy, and IMO, the decision to run with it was not a bold, risk-taking one. Rather it was quite foolish, when looking at the end product.
What else? Connectivity? Nothing really important came out of it. Maybe due to the abysmal hardware difference, maybe it was because of the hefty entry price, or maybe to the input limitations, but it was a failed concept. Its best use was as as an interface to choose items, that´s really the best way to describe its success.
Maybe DS, but so far it has to prove itself further than the launch period, IMO. Just look at N64, and so far from what I´ve seen, it´s far from being a gaming revolution.
In terms of software, we all know how many times their very known (some would say too known) have recieved new iterations, and how little they actually advance. I don´t want to delve into that too much though, since some people have the tendency to overreact when someone doesn´t feel highly about Nintendo´s franchises...so let´s just say they don´t create risky new titles every wednesday.
In conclusion, I don´t really see from what angle Nintendo is a risk taking company and IMO I don´t think they´re, at all.
Almasy said:Evil_Cloud said:
He also said Mario would grow up.
I like to define risky as a move where you gamble a big part of your company´s future and rentability, in order to get certain benefits. Those can include marketshare or market relevance.
Now that I established the context, I don´t think Nintendo has ever done anything risky, at least nothing that wasn´t very flawed in its concept. All I can think of is Virtual Boy, and IMO, the decision to run with it was not a bold, risk-taking one. Rather it was quite foolish, when looking at the end product.
"quite foolish" and "bold, risk-taking" are not exclusive. The fact they ran with a "foolish" idea, thinking it would work, was very bold and risk taking. I think you are downplaying the risk because you think it was stupid. Stupid or not, it was a risk and a gamble.
VB was a big risk at the time and was a high stakes area--VR was "hot" and they were getting into the "VR" craze and trying to merge the idea of a portable with VR. This product had a lot of risks--it could have been the best thing since sliced bread (the hype around VR was unreal... and Sega and Nintendo were both trying to get in on it)... or it could (and did) show that just throwing the Nintendo name on something would not make it float. Remember, to this point Nintendo had released the hugely successful NES, SNES, and GB and was developing the very hyped N64. The VB showed that Nintendo could bleed and was not an invincible Goliath. The VB took R&D and development efforts while trying to bring something new, these efforts could have been put into other projects. A company cannot do too many VB like flops without stretching their R&D and support thin and also without tarnishing their reputation with consumers. Look at Sega--it can tarnish a companies rep pretty quickly when you release products DOA. So it was a pretty huge risk--failure or not.
If the VB was not a "risk" then neither was the Xbox, PS, PS2, or any other device because they can all be downplayed in the bigger picture of the company. If the PS failed or Xbox failed both companies would still be around, and since they were the newcomer they had nothing to lose. (Still risks in my book). Whereas with Nintendo, who is almost exclusively a console/portable game company, every console is make or break. The risks it takes, big or small, are directly related to the health of the company.
The DS is a significant risk. If the dual screens flop/go unused, it will be money spent on an expensive gimmik fighting a more powerful handheld. Would the money spent on the second screen have been better spent on a better GPU or nicer main screen? Nintendo owns the hand held market, so by them taking a different route other than a traditional route... wow! Now that is a risk.
Other examples of Nintendo risks were entering the crashed console game market (after the first crash there were no guarantees), and also releasing a portable game device that cost over $100. Neither of these were guaranteed successes and could have been huge failures for the company. Yet both were excecuted very well to their extreme benefit.
And ROMs on the N64 was a big risk by not taking the CD plunge. CDs were cool at the time and consumers wanted them (I remember the CD-vs-ROM stink like it was yesterday). And developers wanted CDs because of cost and development issues. Trying to stick your game on a 16MB ROM probably was not a lot of fun. Yet Nintendo wanted to go the more secure route where they had a greater control on piracy and royalties/development costs. They risked ROMs for developer support. I think to this day that has hurt Nintendo.
And then there is the GCN's mini-DVDs! Why not just do standard DVDs? You get more size and if you do the Xbox deal, for $30 more people can watch DVD movies. Yet Nintendo (for whatever reason... piracy?) went their own way. Maybe a pointless risk, but they took the risk.
And none of these are necessarily innovations (wireless controllers, analog sticks, 4 controller ports, dual screens, etc...). Nintendo marches to a different beat and is willing to take risks, going against the grain.
So I think they take a lot of risks... some do not work out all that great, but they do try to test the waters to varying degrees. Some risks are bigger than others... the question is: The Revolution--big risk that is a paradigm change or gimmik (connectivity?) that is under utilized and more buss than substance. Time will tell!
I don't see any other company taking risks .
Nintendo time after time has taken risks on its controllers .
Sony copied the super nes controller and added fins to it . Ms copied the saturn and dreamcast controller .
Nintendo stuck with carts instead of cds in the 32bit generation.
Nintendo made the power glove , robby the robot (or whatever it was called ) and the power pad .
Nintendo introduced the analog thumb pad with the n64 .
Nintendo introduced the 4 controller ports on the console
Seems like they take alot of risks , the only company i would say took more was sega .
This busniess doesn't want risks , it wants a brand name that would cause a stagnet market if it meant them making more money
Qroach said:
the design aproaches .
THe problem I see is the double standard when it comes to nintendo .
When nintendo does something its kiddy or they are riding on a few charactors , when sony does it its great or ground breaking .
Even if all sony did was copy what nintendo did years ago .
To be fair Nintendo does like to herald it's own stuff as ground breaking.
When you start claiming that your reinventing something or producing trully ground breaking stuff, you better brace yourself for the response.
It's like me claiming I'me the bestest programmer eva... I'd better to be able to back that up, versus letting my work speak for me.
Oh and FWIW I obviously am the bestest programmer eva, so my point is a little stretched ;P
When you start claiming that your reinventing something or producing trully ground breaking stuff, you better brace yourself for the response.
It's like me claiming I'me the bestest programmer eva... I'd better to be able to back that up, versus letting my work speak for me.
Oh and FWIW I obviously am the bestest programmer eva, so my point is a little stretched ;P
See, this is a common mantra I hear from people who dislike Sony. The fact is, Nintendo IS kiddy and Nintendo IS riding on a few characters. These are Nintendo's problems, and they're their own fault.
Clearly, Sony is doing a LOT more than just copying what Nintendo did years ago. If that's all Sony was doing, they wouldn't have dominated two consecutive generations and sold a cool 80+million with PS2 so far.
- Status
