TheFeniX wrote:The Dudebro market, also known as "Core gaming?" No they haven't.
Then why do they even view Microsoft and Sony as rivials in the first place? It's like talking about Disney with their animated as a competitor against WB's DC movies. They are targetting a slighlty different demographics, but overall they are targeting the same group, moviegoers.
Yea, and are action movies a bastion for innovation? Or have they been beating the same dead horse for years? Either way, if the market has become so saturated with shit that you have to give up what makes your product unique in order to fight for the top, is it even worth it?
This isn't about whether action movies or action games are bastion of innovation. You don't have to give up what makes your product unique to win, just like Disney do not need to make dark and edgy movies to dominate the box office. What is important is companies like Disney need to make movies that earn as much as the dark and edgy movies on a consistent basis.
Should every movie be an action movie? Should every shop be a Walmart? Should every restaurant be a McDonalds? Judging from your arguments, you seem to think so. Thankfully, there are hold-outs. Companies willing to focus on a product, not profit at all costs.
See above.
Stupid people like stupid things. And there are a lot of stupid people or just people who don't care. Hell, even I don't mind a stupid movie here and there. But I don't want every movie to be Transformers.
Of course not. But you need to make movies that rival movies like Transformers in term of box office earnings. Paramount made a billion off a Transformer movie? Then Disney should be able to create a product like Toy Story 3 that has the ability to earn just as much, if not more than Transformers. That is being compeitive without losing your core identity. Giving up the fight by claiming you cater to a different niche is not good business strategy.
I'm just going to call it "McSorny" from now on (referencing MS and Sony). That Nintendo could compete with McSorny at all is hilarious. One of which threw an entire software division profits into bolstering one and the other a hardware division. "Compete" is a subjective term since Nintendo didn't have the luxury of selling a console at a loss and stay in business. McSorny only exist today because of a suicidal all-in into the market. I doubt Nintendo could have competed with them on their own terms back during the Wii era and it's even less of a chance they could do so now.
They don't have to compete against them in everything, but they need to ensure they aren't losing too much of their potential customers. I know you don't give a shit about Pokemon, but ideally, that franchise should not be declining as quickly as it did. There are people who probably don't mind a Pokemon MMO or a slightly more "mature" take on the IP, and these are potential cutsomers Nintendo could be aiming at, in conjunction with the more "kid-friendly" Pokemon games.
Look at Harry Potter as a franchise that continues to grow year after year despite starting out as a children craze.
Who said anything about convincing anyone? Gaming is fucking dead dude. They won like.... 15 years ago. There isn't anything to do but either buy into it or cry like a bitch while you dig for what few gems there are. I decided to cry like a bitch than dump good money after bad into the next CoD installment.
Complaining about how your superior taste differs from others isn't going to convince anyone in this thread about any of your points. I think there are ways which companies like Nintendo and other innovative gaming companies can stay relevant. I mean a few years ago, no one could have imagined a R-rated Deadpool movie to perform better than the X-men films. There are tons of examples of unexpected success and shift in people's taste.
I'll say this: there is no possible chance for Nintendo to start fighting McSorny at their own game. They'd need something else to come along with pre-loaded mass-appeal like Pokemon and capitalize on it.
And I am saying they should make more active efforts to create more mass-appeal games. Pokemon is a perfect example of Nintendo following the same path as the CoD games. They allowed that franchise to decline because every single one of thier games is basically a copy of the old games with slightly updated graphics. Unless you are a massive Pokemon fan as an adult/teen, there are no reasons why you want to get the newest copy of Pokemon.
Before you complain about CoD for being repetitive, you should look at how reptitive one of Nintendo's flagship title can be.
Like what? Conduit? A bro shooter even though their success is due to targeting people outside core gaming? What do you think could possibly get Dudebros to buy a WiiU (or whatever new hardware they put out) and Nintendo to risk losing the install base they already have?
A decent amount of IP other than Pokemon, Mario and Zelda? The new Nintendo console needs to be more than a simple device to play Nintendo exclusive titles. Even with the original Wii, it is actually possible to play CoD on it.
Or they break out and form their own molds. Just because Activision and EA can't generate an original idea doesn't mean other groups can't and don't. Other groups, usually smaller who are worried about making a good product or get their money from that. Not front-loading everything with millions in marketing, bullshots, and pre-orders.
And that needs to be something that companies like Nintendo should be doing. Instead they are using the same old IP like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon.
That's a pretty good example of why the emphasis on big profits over all is a terrible idea. Bioware did pretty much all it's best work before EA strangled them.
If you are a massive multinational company, you pretty much have no choice but to chase profits. If your profits is reduced, it is going to make it harder for you to climb back up again.
There will be no change. At this point, you're basically hoping for kickstarters and small development groups. Even in the cash shop business, smaller teams do it without skull-fucking customers. Such as Warframe being the game DE wanted to make instead of Dark Sector (which was garbage). These were also the guys who came up with The Darkness. See, they're game developers first and it shows in the games they make. They are far from perfect, but at least they try.
I disagree. Companies like Nintendo themselves needs to be willing to embrace some changes for their IP. If they could try and innovate with their flagship title like Pokemon, perhaps the competition would be a lot fiercer.
Maybe. If, as Mr. Bean points out, there weren't new humans being born all the time. Humans with parents who won't dump on them for having fun. People said this same shit when the Star Wars pre-quels were still hugely popular. Lucas knew he already had fans, he went out and got a whole new generation of people to like Star Wars. Disney is now doing the same thing.
But you need to update your IP constantly for it to stay fresh. Disney did it via Pixar when 2D animation is becoming less popular than 3D animation and etc. They tried to update their classic stories with a live-action adaption. The public needs to get the hint that the new Disney stuff isn't exactly like the old Disney stuff.
It's why McDonalds required all their franchise resturants to rennovate every few years. Nintendo is allowing themselves to be seen as outdated.
Yea well, nothing lost as far as I'm concerned. I mean, Baseball has been on a slide for years, should they start throwing oval balls and running the bases 10-yards at a time? If not, should I blame them for letting Baseball still just be popular, instead of a juggernaut?
I think there is something lost if that happens. Part of the fun of games is you can share your experiences with friends. Pokemon is more fun if I had more friends to play with, just like how CoD or Fifa is more fun when I get to play them with my friends at a house party.
Gaming isn't meant to be a lonely experience, or about showing off to others how your taste in gaming is "superior" to others.