How does Nintendo remove the stigma of people only buy Nintendo Games?

#51Ritster21Posted 3/21/2014 1:48:17 PM
Cubfan082 posted...
Ummm, it isn't a "stigma", but an industry proven fact. Nintendo gamers do not support third party titles at an attach rate anywhere near the other consoles...


And why should they?

If you had a PS3 and a Wii, would you really buy the inferior Wii version?
---
FC is 4038-6283-8425
#52TridenTPosted 3/21/2014 4:03:38 PM
Ritster has it right.

Ultimately, the Wii U is the superior console for two reasons - Nintendo exclusives, and the GamePad.

I know, I know, that sounds like a ludicrous claim, but listen to me on this.

The Wii came out, and its goofy motion control sold like hotcakes, and Sony/Microsoft perked up their eager puppy ears and learned from the old wise man how things are done in home entertainment. Before you knew it, we were drowning in horrible, unpleasant waving waggling camera based controls. And then nobody used them and they largely went away. (Well, one of them decided their next gen console had to have the camera still, slapped that bad boy in the main package. I digress.)

Now Nintendo has put the console screen game in the palm of your hand - as an optional feature - to extend the livelihood of the console from simply being that thing that hogs the best TV in the house.

Sure, if you're a bachelor, you put your game console on whenever you feel like and play big games on the big TV. But many gamers, ones who grew up with PS1s, SNESs, Genesiseses, and especially old NES gamers, are now in families, or at least with significant others, who prevent them from monopolizing the big screen any more. Being able to play on the TV when you can, but also play on the handheld when you can't, is going to be an absolutely tremendous facet of gaming going forward. Now, I'm not so wild as to predict that Sony or MS might not come up with a better way to accomplish the same feat - Sony has made much of its money out of taking good Nintendo innovations and improving upon them.

But ultimately Ritster is right. I own a Wii U, and a 360, and I'll never, EVER purchase a game available on both for the Wii U unless they tailor the Wii U version to its hardware (which is an expenditure third parties won't go for often), and even then it will need to be single player only, since multiplayer games will need to attach to my XBL friends list.

Ultimately, to remove the stigma of "Nintendo console owners only buy Nintendo made games", the onus is on Nintendo to create a system that competes with its opponents on all levels - graphically, internet connectivity, feature set, etc. - but also features innovative Nintendo components that don't discourage third parties from porting.

This, however, will almost certainly never happen.
---
~TridenT~
#53Ritster21Posted 3/21/2014 6:33:13 PM
TridenT posted...
Ritster has it right.

Ultimately, the Wii U is the superior console for two reasons - Nintendo exclusives, and the GamePad.

I know, I know, that sounds like a ludicrous claim, but listen to me on this.

The Wii came out, and its goofy motion control sold like hotcakes, and Sony/Microsoft perked up their eager puppy ears and learned from the old wise man how things are done in home entertainment. Before you knew it, we were drowning in horrible, unpleasant waving waggling camera based controls. And then nobody used them and they largely went away. (Well, one of them decided their next gen console had to have the camera still, slapped that bad boy in the main package. I digress.)

Now Nintendo has put the console screen game in the palm of your hand - as an optional feature - to extend the livelihood of the console from simply being that thing that hogs the best TV in the house.

Sure, if you're a bachelor, you put your game console on whenever you feel like and play big games on the big TV. But many gamers, ones who grew up with PS1s, SNESs, Genesiseses, and especially old NES gamers, are now in families, or at least with significant others, who prevent them from monopolizing the big screen any more. Being able to play on the TV when you can, but also play on the handheld when you can't, is going to be an absolutely tremendous facet of gaming going forward. Now, I'm not so wild as to predict that Sony or MS might not come up with a better way to accomplish the same feat - Sony has made much of its money out of taking good Nintendo innovations and improving upon them.

But ultimately Ritster is right. I own a Wii U, and a 360, and I'll never, EVER purchase a game available on both for the Wii U unless they tailor the Wii U version to its hardware (which is an expenditure third parties won't go for often), and even then it will need to be single player only, since multiplayer games will need to attach to my XBL friends list.

Ultimately, to remove the stigma of "Nintendo console owners only buy Nintendo made games", the onus is on Nintendo to create a system that competes with its opponents on all levels - graphically, internet connectivity, feature set, etc. - but also features innovative Nintendo components that don't discourage third parties from porting.

This, however, will almost certainly never happen.


You definitely understand.
---
FC is 4038-6283-8425
#54Cubfan082Posted 3/21/2014 6:59:34 PM
Ritster21 posted...
Cubfan082 posted...
Ummm, it isn't a "stigma", but an industry proven fact. Nintendo gamers do not support third party titles at an attach rate anywhere near the other consoles...


And why should they?

If you had a PS3 and a Wii, would you really buy the inferior Wii version?


the answer is a maybe, if you really like the Wii mote functions.

we agree on this you know...
---
Regarding teaching pigs to sing: "It wastes your time and annoys the pig" ~Mark Twain
#55Cubfan082Posted 3/21/2014 7:07:07 PM
Jobocan posted...
wombatkidd posted...
Call of Duty is shovelware now?


Yes, it is.

Though that's not the original definition of the word, this is how it's commonly used nowadays:
"shovelware
1. Software that is hastily made, without proper testing, and 'shoveled' down consumers throats in order to make some quick cash. "

Geeze, I wonder if CoD is badly made crap that they just make for quick cash every year...


cod isn't shovel ware, your comment is ridiculous. The main key to something being "labeled" shovelware is that it is typically incomplete, broken, buggy and unsupported after its release. It is overpriced for what you get and shows a lack of professionalism in its finished work...

You want to claim shovel ware, talk about Aliens Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem reboot and the Walking Dead Survival Instinct game.

while those games had budgets behond them, they were ultimately garbage with horrible AI, horrible level design, and just a trailer used to sell garbage...that is not what CoD is at all.
---
Regarding teaching pigs to sing: "It wastes your time and annoys the pig" ~Mark Twain
#56king_maddenPosted 3/21/2014 8:20:21 PM
TridenT posted...
Ritster has it right.

Ultimately, the Wii U is the superior console for two reasons - Nintendo exclusives, and the GamePad.

I know, I know, that sounds like a ludicrous claim, but listen to me on this.

The Wii came out, and its goofy motion control sold like hotcakes, and Sony/Microsoft perked up their eager puppy ears and learned from the old wise man how things are done in home entertainment. Before you knew it, we were drowning in horrible, unpleasant waving waggling camera based controls. And then nobody used them and they largely went away. (Well, one of them decided their next gen console had to have the camera still, slapped that bad boy in the main package. I digress.)

Now Nintendo has put the console screen game in the palm of your hand - as an optional feature - to extend the livelihood of the console from simply being that thing that hogs the best TV in the house.

Sure, if you're a bachelor, you put your game console on whenever you feel like and play big games on the big TV. But many gamers, ones who grew up with PS1s, SNESs, Genesiseses, and especially old NES gamers, are now in families, or at least with significant others, who prevent them from monopolizing the big screen any more. Being able to play on the TV when you can, but also play on the handheld when you can't, is going to be an absolutely tremendous facet of gaming going forward. Now, I'm not so wild as to predict that Sony or MS might not come up with a better way to accomplish the same feat - Sony has made much of its money out of taking good Nintendo innovations and improving upon them.

But ultimately Ritster is right. I own a Wii U, and a 360, and I'll never, EVER purchase a game available on both for the Wii U unless they tailor the Wii U version to its hardware (which is an expenditure third parties won't go for often), and even then it will need to be single player only, since multiplayer games will need to attach to my XBL friends list.

Ultimately, to remove the stigma of "Nintendo console owners only buy Nintendo made games", the onus is on Nintendo to create a system that competes with its opponents on all levels - graphically, internet connectivity, feature set, etc. - but also features innovative Nintendo components that don't discourage third parties from porting.

This, however, will almost certainly never happen.


i cant fully agree, about the gamepad being great for the gamers who have families now. i think its more for the kids than the adults. adults more times than not have dibs on who watches the tv when. a lot of male gamers have their systems set up in certain rooms where its mainly just used for their gaming needs.

then there are people like me who want consoles games because they are played on the big tv with surround sound, and full giant 1080p screen, throwing that on a handheld doesnt really do anything for us. MY console is set up in my room, my ol lady watches tv in the living room, my son watches in his room. theres never a time where the tv is tied up. now if they did like sony and let you play games away from the house, then it would be a little better for me. trips to the inlaws wouldnt be as bad, same with long trips.
#57Stanger5150Posted 3/21/2014 8:23:34 PM(edited)
For me, Nintendo's first-party titles almost always destroy the exclusives on other platforms, so I wouldn't care if they were all that the Wii U had.
---
PSN/NN- BlackRain8782
2600, NES, SMS, GB, Lynx, Genesis, TG-16, SNES, Game Gear, Jaguar, PS1, Saturn, N64, GBC, DC, PS2, GCN, GBA, DS, Wii, PS3, 3DS, Wii U
#58HermeticJusticePosted 3/21/2014 8:30:55 PM
Make worse Nintendo games
---
I'm not changing this signature until more information about Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem is announced - Started: 23 January, 2013
#59ViniciusFernandPosted 3/23/2014 2:06:57 PM
BambooPandamo posted...
Buy exclusivity.

Nintendo has the money to do it, they just won't. Farming off their IPs for collaborations like Metroid: Other M and Zelda Musou isn't going to get anyone buy their consoles.


The last time they bought exclusivity the internet started ******* themselves in rage. People are still butthurt about bayonetta.
#60KingKnivesPosted 3/23/2014 5:52:28 PM
Pay fans to buy third party games on their platform. Kind of like how MS pays people to use Bing.

I am of course joking. But really, there's no way anymore with the audience that exists on Wii U who are mainly there because of their desire for Nintendo first party games. HD development costs too much for third parties to subsist on the kind of sales they'd get on Wii U. Wii was a bit of a different story since it wasn't HD and also had different demographics--tons of casuals bought the platform in addition to those of us who bought it for Nintendo first party games and perhaps the occasional third party exclusive gem like Muramasa.
---
Gentlemen. I do not like war. On highways. In trenches. On plains. In desert. On sea. In sky.
I do not like any aspect of war that takes place on this earth.