Why Does Nintendo Get Free Passes?

[VulpineTaco 525]

I am a PC gamer, and I can safely say that building a PC that can run modern games is more expensive than buying a console.

 

I think you need to take a step back and stop looking through the fan glasses and look more objectively. You're kind of coming off as a fan who is mad that someone has criticized their favorite company rather than someone creating a sound argument against said criticisms.

 

That being said, I shall respond to your points as objectively as possible:

 

On the note of people being "entitled" for expecting social media and movie features on consoles, I disagree heavily. These features exist on the PC, they exist on the PS3, and Xbox 360. They have become a part of what people expect with gaming devices these days, not out of entitledness, but out of the fact that every other gaming device can do them. You can't charge me close to the same price and give me less and then say me being upset about that is because I'm entitled. The Wii U is pretty damn close to price to its competitors For only $50 more you can get an Xbox One, and really that $50 you are going to spend on extra hardware to get the Wii U's full functionality. Not being able to use social media aspects is a detriment to the gaming experience. Gaming has become far more social and to not fully include that aspect is lessening the experience for players.

 

Your argument that the other consoles are not focusing on fun is not only subjective, but incorrect. I would wager that twice the sales of the Wii U would say people are having fun on the PS4. The PS4 is leading in software sales, which means people are buying games up the wazoo for it. Your definition of fun may be different, but I am not trying to argue the subjective idea of fun, because that's a moot point and not a good argument standpoint.

 

Your idea of fun clearly is not matching the majority, and when you're a business that's what counts: sales. When sales are dropping, you need to change your gameplan.

 

Your argument of running at 60FPS... Well to respond: 60FPS is far easier to achieve when a majority of your games run at 720p with lower res textures. You're over simplifying the logistics of it.

First of all, I can show you the full logistics an long-term costs of building a PC that far outperforms any console, and it's less expensive in the long term and even possibly short term, if you play your cards right.

 

I'm sorry for sounding mad, and entitled was a bad choice of words, but all of these additions of social media and other functionality, or rather the intense focus on it by the other two consoles, minimizes the gaming experience and shoves what should be the driving force of what people buy consoles for a sort of afterthought, a phenomenon which Microsoft and Sony are only now trying to reject due to them finding that gaming is an experience that is FAR more important on devices supposedly made for games, not for Netflix and Twitter.

 

My choice of words in the whole "fun" argument was also poor. I understand that millions of people have fun on the Xbone and the PS4, but the point I'm trying to make is that the games themselves are so focused on being "epic" and "iconic" that they all blur together and homogenize to the point of being formulaic. Look at Ubisoft or the slew of "gritty" FPS. At some point, it becomes hard to distinguish them, and it's because people are so worried about being seen as mature that no developer will make anything colorful and focused on a fun experience, rather than an epic one. Nintendo makes those colorful games, and it breathes new life into an industry too focused on being taken seriously to pull their heads out of their asses and see that the more serious they try to be, the easier they are to laugh at. Even if Nintendo's games are essentially the same, the sheer fun of it all brings a smile to people's faces, and in this industry, even a little smile feels like something new in the deluge of grey misery pushed onto gamers by more "mature" developers. The evidence of this is exemplified by the late Satoru Iwata, a man who understood that games don't always have to be so straight faced. He was a CEO who wasn't afraid to get into the community and make everyone laugh, and he was the embodiment of what Nintendo games are, a breath of happiness in a world run by grey men in grey suits making grey decisions. If you want Nintendo to change more into the majority's definition (or what you think is their definition) of fun, go ahead, but if they make a change in the direction of gritty grimness, you'd lose an important part of the diversity of the industry. Though, after this E3, I see more companies taking after Nintendo, especially Microsoft. I'm seeing more and more new, colorful, creative games as time goes on from these other companies, and if you don't think they were inspired by Nintendo, you're completely blind.

 

Now, to move onto your argument to 60 FPS, it's far better for a game to run at a better framerate than resolution, that is an objective fact. Framerate affects the game's feel in a major way, resolution is mostly aesthetic, and barely (if at all) affects the way the game feels to play.

 

And if you think I can't criticize Nintendo, I can, they've made dumb choices when it comes to Youtube and limited production of items, they've made bad choices, but they've done so many more good things that I can push my cynicism to the side and enjoy their games and the products they make.

[Guest]

 

 

First of all, I can show you the full logistics an long-term costs of building a PC that far outperforms any console, and it's less expensive in the long term and even possibly short term, if you play your cards right.

 

I'm fully aware of such, however outperforming a console does not matter if it does not get the same lifespan as a console for the same price. You can not convince me you are going to get PS4 graphics after purchasing all the parts, monitor, etc. for less than $399 and it will get the same lifespan with no need for upgrades as a console. I've been building PCs for years, and have been a PC gamer for over 10. I have observed every single "PCs can be cheaper than console" claim I've ever seen and always found some kind of detail that is omitted to make it seem more possible, when it is not. You may be able to build a PC for $500 that can outperform a console, but you are certainly not going to get 6-8 years out of it without upgrades. Especially when you have to factor in the cost of monitors.

 

 

 

I'm sorry for sounding mad, and entitled was a bad choice of words, but all of these additions of social media and other functionality, or rather the intense focus on it by the other two consoles, minimizes the gaming experience and shoves what should be the driving force of what people buy consoles for a sort of afterthought, a phenomenon which Microsoft and Sony are only now trying to reject due to them finding that gaming is an experience that is FAR more important on devices supposedly made for games, not for Netflix and Twitter.

 

How exactly are the PS4 and Xbox One focusing so hard on the social media aspect that the games are an afterthought? Can you give an example? E3 just this year was all about games.

 

 

 

but the point I'm trying to make is that the games themselves are so focused on being "epic" and "iconic" that they all blur together and homogenize to the point of being formulaic.

 

If that is what consumers want, what else do you expect them to do? Consumers are demanding these games, thus they are making them.

 

 

 

Nintendo makes those colorful games, and it breathes new life into an industry

 

I have to disagree.  Nintendo keeps repeating what it's always done. The reason why their "colorful" approach isn't working so well, is because they have done it so many times before that it's getting old. If you are going to point the finger at someone for not wanting to change or embrace some kind of originality, point it at Nintendo. We have been given ANOTHER console that is more or less reliant on first party titles and most of the same first party titles we've always been given with a handful (not even) of new ones.

 

 

 

Even if Nintendo's games are essentially the same, the sheer fun of it all brings a smile to people's faces, and in this industry, even a little smile feels like something new in the deluge of grey misery pushed onto gamers by more "mature" developers.

 

Just because games focus on darker content does not mean they do not make people happy or smile. If I get enjoyment, I am happy.

 

 

 

If you want Nintendo to change more into the majority's definition (or what you think is their definition) of fun, go ahead, but if they make a change in the direction of gritty grimness, you'd lose an important part of the diversity of the industry.

 

That's not true and that is not what I am advocating. I am advocating they embrace BOTH. You can HAVE Mario, Zelda, and all the fun more kind hearted franchises WITH the darker, more gritty games. There is no reason that Dragon Age can not be on the same console as Mario. There's no reason that Zelda can not exist on the same console as Grand Theft Auto. I am saying that a SMARTER business strategy (and I think you will agree) would be to embrace ALL types of gamers fully. Sticking to the more casual audience isn't helping Nintendo and they could pump out a new console (the NX) that is capable of playing those first party Nintendo games, AND Grand Theft Auto 5. There is no reason not to have both besides fans worried that the "purity" of Nintendo would be soiled, but look at the Wii. We got a few gritty titles on it, and it did not hurt the Wii.

 

 

 

Though, after this E3, I see more companies taking after Nintendo, especially Microsoft. I'm seeing more and more new, colorful, creative games as time goes on from these other companies, and if you don't think they were inspired by Nintendo, you're completely blind.

 

That's a bit loaded don't you think? To assume all innovation came from Nintendo? Nintendo was heavily inspired by Atari. The whole Nintendo Network was CLEARLY inspired by Xbox Live and PSN, because before that there was no centralized online service for Nintendo. Nintendo clearly borrowed a lot of their creative ideas from other companies such as Apple as well. To claim that these companies were inspired by Nintendo is kind of ignoring that Nintendo clearly was inspired by other people. Look at the Wii and the Wii U, you can't tell me their designs are not even partially inspired by early 2000s Apple products.

 

Microsoft and Sony may have been inspired partially by Nintendo, but Nintendo was inspired by them too. Look at the Wii U Pro controller: it's almost a complete naughty rip off of the Xbox 360 controller. The Wii U is a whole lot of "we're doing what everyone else has been doing for years."

 

Look at the specifics:

 

-HD support - PS3 and 360 did this first.

-Better graphics - Clearly inspired by their competitors  whom have achieved their level of graphics years prior.

-Nintendo Network - Clearly inspired by Xbox Live and PSN

-Pro Controller - Blatant rip off of 360 controller

-USB Hard drive support on Wii U - Competitors have been doing this for years.

-Flash storage in the system - This has been being done by other companies for years.

-Design of the system - Clearly inspired by Apple.

-Touch screen - Predates even the DS with the Apple Newton and many other devices.

-Gyroscope - Has existed in smartphones for years before the Wii U or the 3DS.

-PowerPC based system - Xbox 360 was PowerPC based, which predates the Wii U and the Wii.

 

What exactly are Sony and Microsoft doing that is clearly inspired by the Wii U? I wish to know. 

 

 

Now, to move onto your argument to 60 FPS, it's far better for a game to run at a better framerate than resolution, that is an objective fact.

 

 

Facts are not objective. Facts are proven statements. I understand better framerate is better, but my point is that it's not exactly difficult to run a lower res game with lower res textures to run at 60FPS.

[VulpineTaco 525]

I'm fully aware of such, however outperforming a console does not matter if it does not get the same lifespan as a console for the same price. You can not convince me you are going to get PS4 graphics after purchasing all the parts, monitor, etc. for less than $399 and it will get the same lifespan with no need for upgrades as a console. I've been building PCs for years, and have been a PC gamer for over 10. I have observed every single "PCs can be cheaper than console" claim I've ever seen and always found some kind of detail that is omitted to make it seem more possible, when it is not. You may be able to build a PC for $500 that can outperform a console, but you are certainly not going to get 6-8 years out of it without upgrades. Especially when you have to factor in the cost of monitors.

 

 

 

 

How exactly are the PS4 and Xbox One focusing so hard on the social media aspect that the games are an afterthought? Can you give an example? E3 just this year was all about games.

 

 

 

 

If that is what consumers want, what else do you expect them to do? Consumers are demanding these games, thus they are making them.

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree.  Nintendo keeps repeating what it's always done. The reason why their "colorful" approach isn't working so well, is because they have done it so many times before that it's getting old. If you are going to point the finger at someone for not wanting to change or embrace some kind of originality, point it at Nintendo. We have been given ANOTHER console that is more or less reliant on first party titles and most of the same first party titles we've always been given with a handful (not even) of new ones.

 

 

 

 

Just because games focus on darker content does not mean they do not make people happy or smile. If I get enjoyment, I am happy.

 

 

 

 

That's not true and that is not what I am advocating. I am advocating they embrace BOTH. You can HAVE Mario, Zelda, and all the fun more kind hearted franchises WITH the darker, more gritty games. There is no reason that Dragon Age can not be on the same console as Mario. There's no reason that Zelda can not exist on the same console as Grand Theft Auto. I am saying that a SMARTER business strategy (and I think you will agree) would be to embrace ALL types of gamers fully. Sticking to the more casual audience isn't helping Nintendo and they could pump out a new console (the NX) that is capable of playing those first party Nintendo games, AND Grand Theft Auto 5. There is no reason not to have both besides fans worried that the "purity" of Nintendo would be soiled, but look at the Wii. We got a few gritty titles on it, and it did not hurt the Wii.

 

 

 

 

That's a bit loaded don't you think? To assume all innovation came from Nintendo? Nintendo was heavily inspired by Atari. The whole Nintendo Network was CLEARLY inspired by Xbox Live and PSN, because before that there was no centralized online service for Nintendo. Nintendo clearly borrowed a lot of their creative ideas from other companies such as Apple as well. To claim that these companies were inspired by Nintendo is kind of ignoring that Nintendo clearly was inspired by other people. Look at the Wii and the Wii U, you can't tell me their designs are not even partially inspired by early 2000s Apple products.

 

Microsoft and Sony may have been inspired partially by Nintendo, but Nintendo was inspired by them too. Look at the Wii U Pro controller: it's almost a complete naughty rip off of the Xbox 360 controller. The Wii U is a whole lot of "we're doing what everyone else has been doing for years."

 

Look at the specifics:

 

-HD support - PS3 and 360 did this first.

-Better graphics - Clearly inspired by their competitors  whom have achieved their level of graphics years prior.

-Nintendo Network - Clearly inspired by Xbox Live and PSN

-Pro Controller - Blatant rip off of 360 controller

-USB Hard drive support on Wii U - Competitors have been doing this for years.

-Flash storage in the system - This has been being done by other companies for years.

-Design of the system - Clearly inspired by Apple.

-Touch screen - Predates even the DS with the Apple Newton and many other devices.

-Gyroscope - Has existed in smartphones for years before the Wii U or the 3DS.

-PowerPC based system - Xbox 360 was PowerPC based, which predates the Wii U and the Wii.

 

What exactly are Sony and Microsoft doing that is clearly inspired by the Wii U? I wish to know. 

 

 

 

 

Facts are not objective. Facts are proven statements. I understand better framerate is better, but my point is that it's not exactly difficult to run a lower res game with lower res textures to run at 60FPS.

So, basically I'm not allowed to enjoy Nintendo games because you get off on being spiteful?

[Guest]

So, basically I'm not allowed to enjoy Nintendo games because you get off on being spiteful?

What? No. I am just pointing things out objectively. I am not trying to be "spiteful" I am literally just making a point. If it comes off that I am attacking you personally, I apologize. I am merely attacking your argument which I do not find sound. It is nothing personal against you or Nintendo, mate.

[VulpineTaco 525]

What? No. I am just pointing things out objectively. I am not trying to be "spiteful" I am literally just making a point. If it comes off that I am attacking you personally, I apologize. I am merely attacking your argument which I do not find sound. It is nothing personal against you or Nintendo, mate.

You are essentially telling me why I should not like Nintendo and using your "objective" statements to try to support it. Unfortunately, the media industry is one built on subjective value. It's not a sound argument because it's built on SUBJECTIVE value, which is what matters in media. Your attempt to objectify gaming is what will kill the industry, not help it. You use sales as an argument, with no regard of the value that games really hold. You're using the same arguments the men in business suits who don't understand gaming use to try to gather as much money as possible with no regard for the enjoyment and advancement of the medium. You can talk objectively about performance, but once you try to tell someone what they can and can't enjoy you start to become the same as the people who have killed franchises for the sake of popularity.

[Guest]

 

 

You are essentially telling me why I should not like Nintendo and using your "objective" statements to try to support it.

 

No no no no! If that is what you got, I apologize. I am just pointing out that Nintendo can be BETTER than they currently are. That embracing changes and not being given the stamp of approval from fans (which makes them not embrace change) hurts them as a whole! I /WANT/ Nintendo to succeed. I love Nintendo and I want them to keep going. My point is being that Wii U sales are down and the practices Nintendo is currently doing are GOING to harm them as a whole and could lead to a future without Nintendo.

 

I want Zelda, Mario and Metroid, but I ALSO want those third party titles. Nintendo COULD have both and they would have a VERY stable future ahead of them again. That isn't going to happen though if people keep telling them that everything is okay.

 

 

 

You use sales as an argument, with no regard of the value that games really hold.

 

I use sales because at the end of the day, I can not argue the content of games because that's 100% objective and thus impossible to get anywhere. Sales however are essential to the life of a company and that IS something I can argue because numbers are more definitive. There is a formula:

 

Sales = Developers interested in making games for the console

Developers interested in making games for the console = More games for the consumers

More games for the consumers = benefiting Nintendo

Benefiting Nintendo = Good for everyone all around.

 

 

 

You're using the same arguments the men in business suits who don't understand gaming use to try to gather as much money as possible with no regard for the enjoyment and advancement of the medium.

 

I am ALL for the advancement of the medium, but at the end of the day the medium CAN'T advance if people aren't buying. It's a necessary evil.

 

 

 

You can talk objectively about performance, but once you try to tell someone what they can and can't enjoy you start to become the same as the people who have killed franchises for the sake of popularity.

 

I am not advocating people not enjoy Nintendo. I am advocating Nintendo embrace the other types of gamers and thus thrives. I am saying that while they have some good titles, they could have more. 

[VulpineTaco 525]

No no no no! If that is what you got, I apologize. I am just pointing out that Nintendo can be BETTER than they currently are. That embracing changes and not being given the stamp of approval from fans (which makes them not embrace change) hurts them as a whole! I /WANT/ Nintendo to succeed. I love Nintendo and I want them to keep going. My point is being that Wii U sales are down and the practices Nintendo is currently doing are GOING to harm them as a whole and could lead to a future without Nintendo.

 

I want Zelda, Mario and Metroid, but I ALSO want those third party titles. Nintendo COULD have both and they would have a VERY stable future ahead of them again. That isn't going to happen though if people keep telling them that everything is okay.

 

 

 

 

I use sales because at the end of the day, I can not argue the content of games because that's 100% objective and thus impossible to get anywhere. Sales however are essential to the life of a company and that IS something I can argue because numbers are more definitive. There is a formula:

 

Sales = Developers interested in making games for the console

Developers interested in making games for the console = More games for the consumers

More games for the consumers = benefiting Nintendo

Benefiting Nintendo = Good for everyone all around.

 

 

 

 

I am ALL for the advancement of the medium, but at the end of the day the medium CAN'T advance if people aren't buying. It's a necessary evil.

 

 

 

 

I am not advocating people not enjoy Nintendo. I am advocating Nintendo embrace the other types of gamers and thus thrives. I am saying that while they have some good titles, they could have more. 

Then how about actually using examples of the good Nintendo has done rather than the glum cynicism that pervades every single one of your arguments. I'm not saying don't point out the negative, but all of your arguments are stiff and unlikable, and therefore will hold no value with anyone. You have the logos, but you have a complete lack of understanding of pathos.

[long gone 8,929]

-PowerPC based system - Xbox 360 was PowerPC based, which predates the Wii U and the Wii.

 The Gamecube was PowerPC-based too, actually. But it wasn't the first console ever to use a PPC CPU, that was the Apple Pippin. Nobody remembers the Pippin, though, because it bombed, and thus people tend to think the Gamecube was the first one to use PowerPC.

[Guest]

Then how about actually using examples of the good Nintendo has done rather than the glum cynicism that pervades every single one of your arguments. I'm not saying don't point out the negative, but all of your arguments are stiff and unlikable, and therefore will hold no value with anyone. You have the logos, but you have a complete lack of understanding of pathos.

When I debate, I don't pull punches. Nintendo is a big multi-billion dollar company, they can handle a bit of criticism without me having to sugar coat it. I base my arguments off of logic, I do not wish to get people to agree by using pity or making them feel bad for Nintendo. No, I use logic and only logic regardless if it comes off as nice or not. If Nintendo makes good moves, they will get praise, if not, they will not get praise.

 

If people refuse to listen because they don't like that Nintendo is being criticized and decide that they will only listen if I sprinkle sugar on it, then those people are NOT doing Nintendo any favors. They are just going to encourage Nintendo to keep along the path they are going and thus go under. The Wii U isn't selling, there is no way around that. Nintendo needs to revamp their strategy and come up with something new or they are GOING to go under. If anyone decides they don't want to think about that unless I sugar coat it, then embrace the end of Nintendo. Nintendo themselves have admitted they want that third party back and that they need the NX to get that for them.

 

I am not going to sugarcoat my criticisms just because some people will choose to ignore facts, numbers, and statistics just because it doesn't make them feel good inside.

 The Gamecube was PowerPC-based too, actually. But it wasn't the first console ever to use a PPC CPU, that was the Apple Pippin. Nobody remembers the Pippin, though, because it bombed, and thus people tend to think the Gamecube was the first one to use PowerPC.

Hahah the Pippin. That was a... Yeah... It was a failure. But yeah the point still stands that PPC has been a thing for sooooo long.

[VulpineTaco 525]

When I debate, I don't pull punches. Nintendo is a big multi-billion dollar company, they can handle a bit of criticism without me having to sugar coat it. I base my arguments off of logic, I do not wish to get people to agree by using pity or making them feel bad for Nintendo. No, I use logic and only logic regardless if it comes off as nice or not. If Nintendo makes good moves, they will get praise, if not, they will not get praise.

 

If people refuse to listen because they don't like that Nintendo is being criticized and decide that they will only listen if I sprinkle sugar on it, then those people are NOT doing Nintendo any favors. They are just going to encourage Nintendo to keep along the path they are going and thus go under. The Wii U isn't selling, there is no way around that. Nintendo needs to revamp their strategy and come up with something new or they are GOING to go under. If anyone decides they don't want to think about that unless I sugar coat it, then embrace the end of Nintendo. Nintendo themselves have admitted they want that third party back and that they need the NX to get that for them.

 

I am not going to sugarcoat my criticisms just because some people will choose to ignore facts, numbers, and statistics just because it doesn't make them feel good inside.

Hahah the Pippin. That was a... Yeah... It was a failure. But yeah the point still stands that PPC has been a thing for sooooo long.

Then you're preparing yourself for failure. You have no charisma, and I won't pull punches when I say that I don't like you, and I like most people. If people don't like you, they won't listen to you, even if what you say is true. You have no comedy, no interesting ways of writing, and no distinguishable personality. Your career in arguing is over unless you decide to put aside your pride and make people like you. There's a harsh truth for you.

[Guest]

Then you're preparing yourself for failure. You have no charisma, and I won't pull punches when I say that I don't like you, and I like most people. If people don't like you, they won't listen to you, even if what you say is true. You have no comedy, no interesting ways of writing, and no distinguishable personality. Your career in arguing is over unless you decide to put aside your pride and make people like you. There's a harsh truth for you.

Well while I do not agree with your opinion, I accept it for what it is.

 

That being said, I disagree. There are many who agree quite heavily with my thoughts on Nintendo, as it's clear from the fact that Nintendo isn't selling the Wii U worth a crap. If people choose to ignore that just because they don't like me, that is a fallacy. It is the age old Hitler argument.

 

"Person A says B"

"Hitler said B"

"Hitler was bad"

"Therefore person A is wrong".

 

Sorry but you are astronomically incorrect in your statement, as ANY debate team will not award a victory to the other team if they do not deliver a sound argument regardless of how liked or disliked they are. And in the business world, being liked means little if you are not making sales. So I disagree completely as when you argue, you MUST be prepared to be disliked. And sorry, but the numbers appear to be in my favor in this regard:

 

Nintendo needs to adapt or die. Sales don't lie. So once again, you are proven incorrect.

 

Really it's quite evident that you are taking a debate far too personally as you are now attacking me as a person and not the argument itself. I think debating is not for you if you can not handle debating with someone without getting personally upset with that person. I am not mad at you, nor do I hate you. I do not agree with your assessment, but if you hit me up any time I will gladly respond.

 

I appreciate your input regardless if I agree with it or not though because discussion is necessary to reach conclusions. Sadly though, your conversation did not really change much. However if you wish to issue more points I am glad to compare.

 

However I think the numbers speak for me in that people clearly agree that the direction Nintendo has gone is not working:

 

 

When you have a whole year head start and you're still dead last, you have a problem.

 

Not to mention I literally just won by default in this debate as you more or less are throwing in the towel.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Guest