"Nintendo Will Fail if They Plan on Releasing Another Home Console"

btw, that was a very nice response markswan!

ultrathe purpose of this post isn't to say that the article is good. what this post is to say is that there are constant articles about nintendo failing. if it's not this article, there is another article and another. the question is, why is it only focused solely on nintendo. how often do you hear articles of, sony about to leave video games or the next 360 will be more broken then the current one? we don't, but it's important that all articles should be about how nintendo is doomed to die. why not sony or microsoft, but only nintendo?! you're the hardcore and the industry, you tell me.sony bombed and there is no article about sony possibly leaving the video game market or how the next sony playstation console could be the end of sony. ps2 to ps3 surely showed that it didn't bombed btw. but nintendo went from third place to first place and there are articles about nintendo is going to die with their next console. as a matter of fact, nintendo is suppose to be a third party developer by now.

I don't see what you mean by "Nintendo failing". The Wii has still topped sales, which is all that truly matters, the numbers. Than you have the DS, true, it is hand held. That portable console has established Nintendo's place even more solidly in the gaming world. With the introduction of the 3DS, Nintendo is continuing to make a run at holding their place on the gaming market.Also, the PS3 didn't bomb. A poor launch does not mean the system bombed. Like many systems before it, it suffered from a range of sub-par launch titles with only one truly notable one in the mix. I would honestly take the PS3 I have over the 360 and the Wii. It is an incredible system with an amazing amount of extras where none feel unnecessary. The only reasons sales aren't as high is because only so many consoles can be produced at once, but most stores become sold out very quickly after getting a new stock of PS3's. I wouldn't call a lack of stock "bombing" sales.Just a little something I noticed, you're a 360 fanboy, aren't you Ultra? I've seen you consistently slam PS3 and Wii in this thread, yet only see Microsoft brought up a number of times, pretty much never by you. When you do bring up the 360, it is far from negative. This is nothing but a "my system is better than your system!" thread, created by somebody with a misinformed opinion who uses internet articles as his weaponry while spouting the same useless BS over and over. You have provided nothing to support your opinion other than a biased, poorly written article.Honestly, "a really good insightful article"? No, no, no.

I don't think he's a fanboy, he's just a fanatic on his own words. Be it contradictory and repeated.

as a matter of fact, nintendo is suppose to be a third party developer by now.

I also have no clue where you get this from, that's just ridiculous.

when the wii was revealed everyone laughted about nintendo and that nintendo shouldn't even bother continuing making hardware as the wii was under powered and should become like sega, a third party developer. you've forgotten already, just as how you've forgotten that final fantasy 13 was suppose to be a ps3 exclusive as well as devil may cry 4. but after 4 years, nintendo is still suppose to be a third party developer or at least third place while the ps3 was suppose to be like the ps2, a winner. http://37signals.com/svn/posts/132-nintendo-thriving-in-third-place
http://rickyopaterny.com/blog/2006/12/03/nintendo-a-third-place-winner/the wii and ps3 launched at the same time. one did better then the other. even worse, sony has more money then nintendo. you are correct, i wouldn't call the ps3 a bomb. after all the ps3 has 34 million world wide now as opposed to 136 million world wide on the ps2. no i wouldn't call it a bomb. it should be called a success!

A third party developer is like an independent game studio, you twat. Nintendo is a first-party developer. Get your fucking definitions right.The Wii launched far before the PS3, and has had far more sales than the PS3 because the latter has had no flagship titles until very recently with God of War, etc. There was also plenty of hype about the Wii. Nobody laughed because it was just so damn innovative. Get your fucking facts straight.And those articles aren't supporting your opinion at all, goddammit. They're analysing Nintendo's unique business approach (that they make a simple console and make money out of that as well, since there still can be decent games on what you think is underpowered hardware), and what's more, they're saying it's been hugely profitable when compared to the Microsoft/Sony business strategy of "HURR DURR THROW MORE MONEY AT IT". I'm also annoyed at your apparent idea that good games can't be on relatively low-powered systems. Look at Final Fantasy 7 or whatever you fags think is good (6 is superior btw). They were on the PS1, so obviously they're not good games because they're on underpowered hardware?Nintendo has made far more money out of the Wii just from sales, not simply because Sony makes a slight loss on each console, but because there are far more Wiis out there than PS3s. Neither console has bombed, but your assertion that the PS3 is more successful is wrong.tl;dr SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU KEEP PULLING FACTS AND OPINIONS OUT OF YOUR ASS AND ONLY READING AND INTERPRETING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, WHEN REALLY, YOU'RE HURTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT BY BEING A MASSIVE FUCKING RETARD.

Replying to #25

Spoiler

i'm quoting this so loony and seph and the mods can do something about this. this sort of lanuage and agression isn't needed.

back to topic, ps3 was released november 11 and the wii was released november 19. did the wii had a launch before the ps3? certainly if you didn't know the release dates.sega was in a disasterous place. they were last but not only last, they were in the 4th place. if you're in the fourth place, it's big trouble. what happened to sega?! they became third party. this was expect of nintendo this generation when the wii was suppose to be dead last in third place, as mentioned by many in the release of the wii in 2006.http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12890
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/report-ps3-delay-to-have-little-impact-on-next-gen-race/68698/?biz=1i particularly like this one because it means the direction of sega, third party direction
http://kotaku.com/gaming/console-wars/analyst-revolution-nintendos-last-console-138532.phpbill's response to motion controller, and now he's full blown on natal!?
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1532461/20060524/index.jhtml?headlines=trueand the april fools joke of the wii,
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6146958.html?page=4the one console that hasn't bombed is the 360. they stayed status quo, that is they remained in second last generation and they're still second. again, the ps3 didn't bombed at all because 34 million compared to 136 million isn't really a significant loss. i don't really believe losing 100 million owners is a loss. it's an opportunity for nintendo and microsoft to take them.

I think you're confusing the words "class" and "party," man.Lol. Oh dear an April Fool's Joke! That means we fail!

ultra · #26

Spoiler

i'm quoting this so loony and seph and the mods can do something about this. this sort of lanuage and agression isn't needed.

back to topic, ps3 was released november 11 and the wii was released november 19. did the wii had a launch before the ps3? certainly if you didn't know the release dates.sega was in a disasterous place. they were last but not only last, they were in the 4th place. if you're in the fourth place, it's big trouble. what happened to sega?! they became third party. this was expect of nintendo this generation when the wii was suppose to be dead last in third place, as mentioned by many in the release of the wii in 2006.http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12890
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/report-ps3-delay-to-have-little-impact-on-next-gen-race/68698/?biz=1i particularly like this one because it means the direction of sega, third party direction
http://kotaku.com/gaming/console-wars/analyst-revolution-nintendos-last-console-138532.phpbill's response to motion controller, and now he's full blown on natal!?
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1532461/20060524/index.jhtml?headlines=trueand the april fools joke of the wii,
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6146958.html?page=4the one console that hasn't bombed is the 360. they stayed status quo, that is they remained in second last generation and they're still second. again, the ps3 didn't bombed at all because 34 million compared to 136 million isn't really a significant loss. i don't really believe losing 100 million owners is a loss. it's an opportunity for nintendo and microsoft to take them.

What did I say? That's right, a 360 fanboy.

ultra · #26i'm quoting this so loony and seph and the mods can do something about this. this sort of lanuage and agression isn't needed.

Boo-fucking-hoo. Go cry in a corner.

ultra · #26sega was in a disasterous place. they were last but not only last, they were in the 4th place. if you're in the fourth place, it's big trouble. what happened to sega?! they became third party. this was expect of nintendo this generation when the wii was suppose to be dead last in third place, as mentioned by many in the release of the wii in 2006.http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12890
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/report-ps3-delay-to-have-little-impact-on-next-gen-race/68698/?biz=1

These articles are bullshit. They're opinion pieces from 2006-2007. Every link you've given us has been old and doesn't reflect the current market, and I think I know why. It's because current articles cannot support your bullshit claims of Wii inferiority.I'm requesting a lock of this topic if I don't get given some very recent articles. If we don't get them, then there is really no point in continuing an argument with somebody too batshit retarded to even check the dates of his so-called "evidence" because he's so caught up in trying to prove his OPINION.

[quote="Suiseiseki"]A third party developer is like an independent game studio, you twat. Nintendo is a first-party developer. Get your fucking definitions right. He was saying that Nintendo was predicted to become a third party developer for other companies' consoles if the Wii failed to be successful in the same way that Sega did after the Saturn failed. Maybe you should take a moment to calm down and try to understand someone else's point before spitting all over it you imbecile.The Wii launched far before the PS3, and has had far more sales than the PS3 because the latter has had no flagship titles until very recently with God of War, etc. As Ultra has pointed out; it didn't. The PS3 also had flagship titles before God of War 3 (When the PS3 first came out i think it was a Motorstorm game?, it was some racing game with deformable tracks anyhow), it also has games like Little Big Planet and Uncharted before God of War. There was also plenty of hype about the Wii. Nobody laughed because it was just so damn innovative. Get your fucking facts straight.Plenty of people (although not he majority of analysts or journalists) thought the Wii wouldn't be successful due to being underpowered graphically and having motion controls that were seen as gimicky; however, they were proved wrong when it became an almost immediate success. Also, was it really worth coming across as an raging idiot to fulfil your apparent swear quota?And those articles aren't supporting your opinion at all, goddammit. They're analysing Nintendo's unique business approach (that they make a simple console and make money out of that as well, since there still can be decent games on what you think is underpowered hardware), and what's more, they're saying it's been hugely profitable when compared to the Microsoft/Sony business strategy of "HURR DURR THROW MORE MONEY AT IT". I'm also annoyed at your apparent idea that good games can't be on relatively low-powered systems. Whilst it's true (IMO) that good games can be made on any system regardless of the power of its hardware; it wouldn't be untrue to say that the Wii has probably missed out on a great many games that could have been ported to it from other platforms if it had hardware on a similar level. Games on the Wii are in many ways limited by the hardware, which isn't powerful enough to allow games to reach their potential.
Look at Final Fantasy 7 or whatever you fags think is good (6 is superior btw). They were on the PS1, so obviously they're not good games because they're on underpowered hardware? Although i, and possibly the other homosexuals, understand your point; the PS1 was in a different position to the Wii. It was the most popular console of its generation with only one competitor that burnt out fairly quickly, and lagged behind the N64 in terms of graphical capabilities to a much lesser extent than the Wii does with the PS3/Xbox 360.FF7 is a good game, and considered by many to be a classic due to its gameplay which is perceived to be timelessly brilliant; the quality of the gameplay is a result of the developer making an effort and pushing the boundaries of what was possible with every aspect of the game at the time. The bar for boundaries such as graphics and storytelling has been set incredibly high by games of this generation such as Mass Effect and Gears of War; these games could not run on the hardware of the Wii due to things such as processing power.The technology available to developers for other modern platforms gives them greater freedom to push forward with the natural progression of things such as greater polygon counts, larger more detailed environments and more voice recordings in games. These things aren't necessary to make a brilliant and memorable game, they are just extravagant luxuries, but we consumers love luxuries; and if we are given them for long enough and in large enough quantities we take them for granted and we expect them all the time.
For this reason, people look down on games for the Wii that are attempting the same things as mirror games on the other consoles; trying to create a game that even comes close to Xbox, PS3 and PC games in terms of graphics, audio quality, the amount of data that can be stored and such is impossible and so they see the Wii as a "casual" console and only purchase games that fit that title. Developers are actually interested in making money; and as it has been shown that crappy mini games compilations, feckless kiddies games and lifestyle sell better than games such as that Resident Evil lightgun game and cost a small fraction of the price and effort to develop, but sell far better, they decide to do that'll make them money.Because of this, games on the Wii tend to be of a lower general quality than those on other consoles in terms of ambition; if a third party developer has an ambitious game with a brilliant they tend to make it with the PS3/Xbox/PC in mind with tragically few exceptions. Nintendo has made far more money out of the Wii just from sales, not simply because Sony makes a slight loss on each console, but because there are far more Wiis out there than PS3s. Neither console has bombed, but your assertion that the PS3 is more successful is wrong.tl;dr SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU KEEP PULLING FACTS AND OPINIONS OUT OF YOUR ASS AND ONLY READING AND INTERPRETING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, WHEN REALLY, YOU'RE HURTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT BY BEING A MASSIVE FUCKING RETARD.
[b]And you're hurting your own argument by jumping on the "take the piss out of Ultra rather than intelligently argue a point" bandwagon.
[/quote]

I'll pick through that when you learn to quote properly.

Romulation has forums? Anyways...bahahaha, Nintendo knows what they're doing. Here's an avenue of thought: Nintendo WILL NOT fail if they make a new console because they can use the innovation of the Wii with the graphics of the current gen systems to net less overhead costs, compared to Sony and Microsoft, since current gen hardware is becoming cheaper.I mean, it's just a thought, but really...Nintendo isn't going anywhere even if they make a new system that flops.

Suiseiseki · #31I'll pick through that when you learn to quote properly.

I took the lazy route and put my opinion in bold within the quotes, so what?
If you're referring to the fact that i lost track of where a had and hadn't inserted bold tags then feel free to "pick through" now as i've now corrected myself.

Many thanks."Was predicted". You'll note that those claims are from three or four years ago. They've lost any relevance now, regardless of whether I interpreted wrong or not. His entire argument is moot because it's based on old claims that don't reflect the modern market.Okay, you got me on the release date thing (although I was sure the Wii was released in Oceania first). I didn't back it up. Little Big Planet seems more like a gimmicky app for the PS3, Uncharted is still fairly recent, and I'm heavily biased because I never listen to anything about the PS3. Also, raging is how I conduct myself when I'm being confronted by an imbecile. You'll notice That I am quite capable of holding a mature and reasoned debate.I'll point out that I didn't like FF7. Give me 4 or 6 any day, the storytelling is far better even if it doesn't leave a lot of open-ended scope. My point there was simply to refute any claim that a good game cannot be on a low-powered system. It's like saying, "this system can't do this, so all the games on it are bad". My PS1 can't play DVDs, but Star Ocean 2 is amazing anyway. NMH and NMH2 are both great games for the Wii that have taken advantage of what the Wii has to offer. It's not all about polygon counts. It's about working innovatively inside the limitations given (see Scribblenauts, for instance). I agree that there are a couple of games that could have been ported to the Wii had it had better hardware (Soul Calibur 4), but Nintendo's business model for the Wii does cater to the casual market rather highly. Yes, because of this, the Wii might not have as many good games as any other given console. But that said, I will steadfastly argue against any assertion that better hardware automatically means better games. I'd much rather play No More Heroes 2 than Halo 3.And as for jumping on the "bash ultra" bandwagon, have you considered that there's a reason to bash ultra? Like his generalised claims based on three-year-old articles projecting the failure of the Wii? Or his tendency to ignore what he doesn't want to read and/or can't rebutt? I'm not one for bandwagons, but he deserves every bit of the ridicule placed on him.

Markswan, the reason why I've been bashing ultra because he has three topics he failed at, and he's done the same thing all the time. If you choose to dig up old topics of his that have a couple of posts, you'll see it's the same thing every time. If you see someone doing the same mistake, it's no longer a mistake, it's a problem.Also <3 Suis.

And you're hurting your own argument by jumping on the "take the piss out of Ultra rather than intelligently argue a point" bandwagon.

Because obviously ultra's arguments are intelligent. Insane, gaynor, Suis and I (include Hypr, why not), are frustrated with his fallacies and illogical arguments.

Suiseiseki>implying that current videogaming sales/adoption trends will continue in a predictable manner, as predicted by someone on the internet with an unwarranted sense of self-importance

God dammit /v/, greentext doesn't even work here.

Replying to #36

> implying greentext doesn't work hereITT: YHBT

narcolepticchair · #36God dammit /v/, greentext doesn't even work here.

[color=green]>implying it's not the thought that counts

Suiseiseki · #34Many thanks.
"Was predicted". You'll note that those claims are from three or four years ago. They've lost any relevance now, regardless of whether I interpreted wrong or not. His entire argument is moot because it's based on old claims that don't reflect the modern market.

True, and i never defended them.

Suiseiseki · #34Okay, you got me on the release date thing (although I was sure the Wii was released in Oceania first). I didn't back it up. Little Big Planet seems more like a gimmicky app for the PS3, Uncharted is still fairly recent, and I'm heavily biased because I never listen to anything about the PS3. Also, raging is how I conduct myself when I'm being confronted by an imbecile. You'll notice That I am quite capable of holding a mature and reasoned debate.

I've read his past posts, and from what little i could understand of them i gather that he is indeed repetitive and sometimes very annoying; but he would surely give up reinstating the same opinion/s as facts over and over again if people didn't keep piling attention on him and engaging in faux "debates" he may begin to see sense and take facts into account before forming his opinions. Otherwise debating with him is like trying to convince a deeply religious person that there is no God; a pointless exercise in exasperation where the more you argue reason the further they retreat behind their blind faith and deafen themselves to it.

Suiseiseki · #34I'll point out that I didn't like FF7. Give me 4 or 6 any day, the storytelling is far better even if it doesn't leave a lot of open-ended scope. My point there was simply to refute any claim that a good game cannot be on a low-powered system. It's like saying, "this system can't do this, so all the games on it are bad". My PS1 can't play DVDs, but Star Ocean 2 is amazing anyway. NMH and NMH2 are both great games for the Wii that have taken advantage of what the Wii has to offer. It's not all about polygon counts. It's about working innovatively inside the limitations given (see Scribblenauts, for instance). I agree that there are a couple of games that could have been ported to the Wii had it had better hardware (Soul Calibur 4), but Nintendo's business model for the Wii does cater to the casual market rather highly. Yes, because of this, the Wii might not have as many good games as any other given console. But that said, I will steadfastly argue against any assertion that better hardware automatically means better games. I'd much rather play No More Heroes 2 than Halo 3.

I agree with all of the above, my argument was that the hardware of the Wii has played some part in the overall quality of the games available for it. Super Mario Galaxy was one of the prettiest games that i've ever seen, and the most fun i've had in years.

Suiseiseki · #34And as for jumping on the "bash ultra" bandwagon, have you considered that there's a reason to bash ultra? Like his generalised claims based on three-year-old articles projecting the failure of the Wii? Or his tendency to ignore what he doesn't want to read and/or can't rebutt? I'm not one for bandwagons, but he deserves every bit of the ridicule placed on him.

I can only reiterate may above point about luring a religious person into logic. Nobody deserves to be mocked so visciously; even if they are spouting rubbish, and not all of his points are crap.

Natewlie · #35Because obviously ultra's arguments are intelligent. Insane, gaynor, Suis and I (include Hypr, why not), are frustrated with his fallacies and illogical arguments.

Then why bother arguing with him? I have looked over his past posts, and it seems that despite the fact that he's a broken record with no logical backing to most of the things he claims; the responses he gets from people like you and that Hypr guy make his threads worth reading. Say what you like about him, but there would be a lot less intelligent posts without the bait of his opinions.

Replying to #39

One lone mistake in your otherwise well-written post, and that's assuming I operate on the same basic ethical and moral principles as most people.