Tchuck Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Sega is nowhere near as successful as they were before, though. Same as the quality of their games which hasn't been up to par. It would be terrible for consumers because Nintendo offers an alternative to the other two consoles that are pretty much the same. But it is. Working with triple A games, companies are looking for ways to make things more realistic, more believable, more powerful. And that's where consoles like Microsoft's and Sony's will always head towards. But with the rise in mobile, where you see companies raking in millions a day, things are changing. Nintendo is watching and trying to adapt to it, whereas the other two big makers are just going bigger is always better. My point is, we need Nintendo as a hardware maker, to give us the alternative to the current paradigm. They are the ones always going for innovation and always putting out quality titles. I do see them opening up slightly on their multiplatformness, like their new Pokemon Go heading to smartphones and their partnership with DeNA. But going strictly software maker would kill them. Edit: To elaborate further on why it would kill Nintendo: -They get a lot, I mean a lot of money from their hardware sales. All of their systems are profitable from day one, whereas Sony and Microsoft have to endure losses to beat the other. Say they get 25 bucks per 3DS sold, that's nearly 250 million a year of income. Imagine if that was gone. -They can create accessories for their hardware that open up other revenue streams. Imagine if they were a third party developer only, and wanted to create something like the Amiibo? Tough luck convincing Microsoft/Sony to build something for it. -Without the massive profits from their hardware, Nintendo would have to either pump out more titles in a shorter stream of time, which would lead to a decrease in quality, or cut all of the titles that are new and focus only on milking their brands. Forget about Pikmin, F-Zero, Animal Crossing, Splatoon. It would be all Mario and all Pokemon, or they wouldn't turn enough money to keep the lights on. -The cut they'd have to give to the platform holders for the sale of each of their games will be a massive loss as well Edited September 15, 2015 by Tchuck bloatedsack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Power Colt Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) I don't think going software only would kill Nintendo. They own the rights to some of the most popular franchises in gaming history. Sega only had Sonic I think and somehow they even managed to screw that up. Yet it's not like Sega is dead or anything. They still publish good games every now and then. I do like that Nintendo still values that party aspect for games and that they're trying to innovate. However, the gamepad comes off to a lot of the more dedicated gamers as just a gimmick that doesn't do much to improve the gaming experience. They'd rather go for more processing power. The Wii U is more of a family friendly console, but they haven't been able to capture that market perfectly either unlike how they did with the Wii back in the day. When the Wii U was introduced, it just confused a lot of people so I guess it was also badly marketed. And the platform just being very different from the rest scares off 3rd-party developers. As a consumer, I hope their next console is something that can capture both the "casual" and "hardcore" audiences better. Just bringing the processing power up to speed could be a big step. Edited September 15, 2015 by Nutsack McQueen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadeBrazen Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 So, I would say Bethesda with their Fallout and TES games handle DLC well, as the main games are already jampacked with content, and well rounded as a complete story. The DLC then offers new quests/areas/stuff to add to in a logical way - you want it coz you've knackered the main game by now. I understand that Projekt Red (is that right?) With The Witcher 3 also handle DLC well, though as its free perhaps not relevant. On the other end of the spectrum the only game that I can think has nagged me with DLC/pay for content, has weirdly been The Last Of Us - with the Factions MP. I just felt the unlockable customizations sucked ass compared to the pay to unlock but no way am I gonna drop £2 on a random helmet. Also the unlocks included powerful weaponry, so it was almost pay to win. Great game yeah, but pay for content handled poorly. You guys got some more examples? Everyone just fluffin it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Power Colt Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) I hope they make more fun stand-alone expansions like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon and Wolfenstein: The Old Blood that feature the same type of gameplay as the main game, but have a new unique setting with some cool twists. You could technically play the Old Blood first to sort of get a taste of what the main game is like(the story is also a prequel to New Order). Edited September 15, 2015 by Nutsack McQueen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coin Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Sega is nowhere near as successful as they were before, though. Same as the quality of their games which hasn't been up to par. It would be terrible for consumers because Nintendo offers an alternative to the other two consoles that are pretty much the same. I suspect that depends on what you're comparing it to but they've done quite well for themselves since and it's definitely preferable to the alternative (no Sega at all). What is it exactly you think that Nintendo offers in being an alternative? I'm only seeing first party line up. In any event, I don't think it'll be terrible but as I've said previously, not necessarily good either. I'd stand to benefit though (). But it is. Working with triple A games, companies are looking for ways to make things more realistic, more believable, more powerful. And that's where consoles like Microsoft's and Sony's will always head towards. But with the rise in mobile, where you see companies raking in millions a day, things are changing. Nintendo is watching and trying to adapt to it, whereas the other two big makers are just going bigger is always better. I don't see many triple A games that angle for things to be more realistic or believable except those that always have done (as technology allows) because it makes sense. And I cannot agree that both Sony and Microsoft are only focused on going bigger and better; this gen has bucked that trend quite a bit. My point is, we need Nintendo as a hardware maker, to give us the alternative to the current paradigm. They are the ones always going for innovation and always putting out quality titles. I do see them opening up slightly on their multiplatformness, like their new Pokemon Go heading to smartphones and their partnership with DeNA. But going strictly software maker would kill them. As said, I do agree that they offer an alternative. Nintendo's current flavour of innovation though... well, there's a reason why my Wii was an expensive door stop and the Wii U is a non-purchase. -They get a lot, I mean a lot of money from their hardware sales. All of their systems are profitable from day one, whereas Sony and Microsoft have to endure losses to beat the other. Say they get 25 bucks per 3DS sold, that's nearly 250 million a year of income. Imagine if that was gone. I have my doubts. Both the Wii U and the latest handheld have fallen far short of expected sales performance (my dislike aside, I honestly expected that the Wii U would sell better than the PS4 and Xbox One, not dragging up the rear despite longer shelf life) and they've had to endure a few years of losses before getting back on track recently. Now, obviously that's not a "well, time to ditch hardware" so much as a "Perhaps something is wrong and we need to change". -They can create accessories for their hardware that open up other revenue streams. Imagine if they were a third party developer only, and wanted to create something like the Amiibo? Tough luck convincing Microsoft/Sony to build something for it. I don't disagree. But third party developer doesn't preclude being able to create accessories for their games. I mean, just look at the recent "Toys to Life" trend. -Without the massive profits from their hardware, Nintendo would have to either pump out more titles in a shorter stream of time, which would lead to a decrease in quality, or cut all of the titles that are new and focus only on milking their brands. Forget about Pikmin, F-Zero, Animal Crossing, Splatoon. It would be all Mario and all Pokemon, or they wouldn't turn enough money to keep the lights on. I see no reason to believe that will be the case at all, especially in life of Nintendo's recent fiscal performances. -The cut they'd have to give to the platform holders for the sale of each of their games will be a massive loss as well Not necessarily. This thread is now about Nintendo. I hope you guys enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Power Colt Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) They could expand their gaming division if they stopped making hardware and the sales of their games would probably increase as well, because they would be multiplatform. Also I don't think any console has ever been profitable from day-one. Especially not the Wii U. During the year it was released, there were numerous reports of Nintendo being in financial trouble. The console only started picking up some speed last year when they started releasing some high quality exclusives. Edited September 15, 2015 by Nutsack McQueen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchuck Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I suspect that depends on what you're comparing it to but they've done quite well for themselves since and it's definitely preferable to the alternative (no Sega at all). What is it exactly you think that Nintendo offers in being an alternative? I'm only seeing first party line up. In any event, I don't think it'll be terrible but as I've said previously, not necessarily good either. I'd stand to benefit though ( ). Innovation, quality games, pushing the envelope forward, thinking differently. But again, tastes differ. I'm not interested in PS4/Xbox One because I already have a PC that can play most of their interesting games. I am interested in what Nintendo puts out cause they are my kind of games for home consoles. What about the other alternative? Had Sega stayed in the hardware fight, had the Dreamcast not flopped, imagine the kind of market we'de be living in. We'll never know. I don't see many triple A games that angle for things to be more realistic or believable except those that always have done (as technology allows) because it makes sense. And I cannot agree that both Sony and Microsoft are only focused on going bigger and better; this gen has bucked that trend quite a bit. Has it, though? They're still competing on terms of their console's powers. There's no real killer app for either imo. When anyone talks about the PS4 or the Xbox One, the focus is always on power and on being a "home center for entertainment" (at least on the Xbox One front). Now they're coming up with VR because that's the in thing at the moment. But I doubt either of them would ever try to pioneer anything, like Nintendo did with the Wii, with the DS, with the 3DS etc. As said, I do agree that they offer an alternative. Nintendo's current flavour of innovation though... well, there's a reason why my Wii was an expensive door stop and the Wii U is a non-purchase. That's great, they don't have to appeal to everyone. My Wii saw thousands of hours of play time, and my Wii U has a select library of games that I play on a weekly basis, and am just waiting for my next paycheck to get a couple more in. Different strokes for different folks for sure, but to simply dismiss it as a flop and say that Nintendo should just move to software is very naive. Imagine, if their games are so unappealing to you, who is not their target audience, that you won't even think of buying their console to play them, what makes you think you would suddenly be interested in them if they were available for whatever other platform you own? Chances are, you'd just shrug it off and go play the games you already enjoy playing. I have my doubts. Both the Wii U and the latest handheld have fallen far short of expected sales performance (my dislike aside, I honestly expected that the Wii U would sell better than the PS4 and Xbox One, not dragging up the rear despite longer shelf life) and they've had to endure a few years of losses before getting back on track recently. Now, obviously that's not a "well, time to ditch hardware" so much as a "Perhaps something is wrong and we need to change". Wii U hasn't seen great sales because Nintendo seriously flunked up the marketing. People weren't sure if it was a new thing or just an upgrade. I saw it with people here in Japan. The 3DS has surpassed the 50m mark, which is pretty damn good. But yeah, and Nintendo noticed something is wrong, and has been trying to change it by making more excellent games, and coming up with something new for next year. I don't disagree. But third party developer doesn't preclude being able to create accessories for their games. I mean, just look at the recent "Toys to Life" trend. True, but if it's already part of the platform it makes it a helluva lot easier to integrate with it. And either way, Nintendo would have to make the hardware by themselves again, which would be stupid to make if they had just ditched their whole manufacturing chains. I see no reason to believe that will be the case at all, especially in life of Nintendo's recent fiscal performances. That's because they own the platforms they publish their games on. They have much better knowledge and access of the system's capabilities from day one. They don't need to wait for certification from a third party or any potential conflicts across different platforms. Their games will always run and run well on their system. Saves A LOT of money not having to do those things like the others have. Ditching their own platform, costs will increase by a lot. Not necessarily. Think about 30% of your revenue suddenly disappearing. That's quite a big cut! Yeah, sorry to derail this topic into Nintendo, it's just that it annoys me to no end when people say they should just quit and go like Sega, and people have been saying that for what, a decade or so. They won't, they shouldn't, there's no reason for it. They have bucketloads of cash reserves from their previous successes, enjoy full control over their platforms, and can push as much innovation as they wish. It makes zero sense at all for them to do that, specially since they are so successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowfennekin Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I miss the days when there wasn't "Pre-order DLC" or "You can only get this DLC..... if you buy the game at THIS store" (Usually a store I have no intention of going to....... Best Buy *rolls eyes* ) or console exclusive DLC *glares at Ubisoft and Playstation* DLC that is made and released later on is perfectly fine. I just hate DLC that is ready and available on day 1...... pre-ordered a ton of games just to get that "free" DLC that will probably cost quite a lot later on. Mass Effect 3 taught me that lesson. Smash Bros does DLC right. And I'm okay with DLC that all proceeds go to charity. Like that Saints Row 4 DLC(Which was PC exclusive....... but I forgave them for that and got the DLC anyways cause..... Metal Godzilla!) Edited September 16, 2015 by Shadowfennekin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Power Colt Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Pre-order DLC isn't about giving you more content, it's about taking away content from those who don't want to pre-order. And it's smarter as a consumer not to pre-order, because you can rethink your interest in the game after reading reviews and general feedback for the game. It's also a dick move when some publishers these days push the review embargo past the release date meaning that you can't even cancel your pre-order if the game ends up getting sh*t reviews. Also the latest pre-order scheme with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is probably the worst of the bunch since you don't even get everything even though you pre-order and it unlocks more content when more people pre-order the game meaning that people will just tell others to pre-order it. I really hope the game itself will turn out good tho. Never played the original, but I very much enjoyed Human Revolution. Edited September 16, 2015 by Nutsack McQueen Daz and B Dawg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchuck Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 The pre-order scheme for Mankind Divided is so insane. It was clearly developed by marketing, looking into the mobile world and thinking up "cool fun ways to engage with the gamers" by milking them with "incentives". I'd expected much better from them. Going to wait for release day for that game, screw pre-ordering games with abusive practices. Fallout 4, on the other hand, they already announced the season pass, and it's going to be worth it because you know they will produce excellent content, that hasn't been removed from the base game. It's sad, really, DLC is something that could be used so damn well to extend a game's life, but the way most companies do it... Daz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Remember when story DLC existed? And when it used to only be £8.99? I mean nothing ever was more than £12, and that was only shivering isles and the odd other one and that was practically a second f*cking game. What do we get now? Paying 90% of the price of the original game just to get 1 new raid in Destiny and we still haven't got a new planet yet. It is f*cking bullsh*t. Or how battlefield used to just give you 5-10 maps for f*cking free, and now you have to pay more than full retail for only 10 maps in a base game then to get more you have to pay what you did to get the game originally. So instead of paying £40 you are paying £80 just off the bat with bullsh*t premium. It was the season pass that f*cked us. I never bought into any of that bullsh*t. It does nothing for you to buy it straight away, just some pointless in-game items that get restricted from us. It is just pure bullsh*t. I know people give early access a bad wrap. And sometimes it deserves it but honestly, If I pay half the price of a full retail game, and get a game that I know cant possibly sell me DLC, I am happy with that. It might take a while to get content but devs always update it and add content which you don't have to pay for. Minecraft still technically isn't finished and all that content and updates are free. That is why I still enjoy sh*t like DayZ. I went off it for a while didn't think I would play it again and when you come back there is so much new sh*t, and you didn't have to pay anything. Most games are technically early access, the only difference is the ones labeled that way are honest about it. You are still paying full retail price for a broken game that sells you DLC for something that isn't complete or even works properly. You are just paying more money for a just as sh*t product. At least with early access games you pay less and don't have to pay for DLC before it even gets fixed. I really wish all DLC development would be banned until games have been actually released. It makes me sick they could even think of that before a game is even out. Telling us they will plan to make some is one thing, but when it's released a month after release you know that sh*t was there on release. PUT IT IN THE GAME FFS. Also, there should be a rule, anything on the disc should be mine. If I paid my money for that sh*t and it's on there, it's mine. Edited September 16, 2015 by Daz Rotary, Tchuck and B Dawg 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
