TheGrayGhost said:
And just to clarify, this essay is very objective.
Hardly. It would only seem that way because of the seemingly "academic" way it's been written in, but there are a lot of facts that are in complete contradiction with his assessment.
The one that stands about the most is about his theory of genre maturity leading to market saturation. He talks about "maturity reducing the total number of players" which couldn't be further from the truth as the gaming industry has grown significantly into a multibillion dollar business in such a short period of time. That's because the number of players have only increased with time, not decreased. And with the ever-growing numbers of people who are satisfied with the "same old same old" and the annual growth rate of the industry, his claim of people getting tired and gamers turning away holds little weight.
See from what I have seen of the gaming industry, it's
what you play that is the foremost attraction factor rather than
how you play. Which is why The Sims and GTA franchises are the best selling videogame franchises ever. Their content evidently appeals to the widest possible demographic. Now there's been a lot of talk about Nintendo's "innovative" strategy, but truth be told, I don't buy it. Not a bit. Some people are under the mistaken impression that Nintendo is about to bring about a revolutionary change and is leading the charge to a reform in the gaming industry. Won't happen.
Nintendo picked a different route this time simply because it can't afford to tackle it's competitors head-on anymore. They just don't have the technical prowess of either Sony nor the unlimited checkbook of Microsoft and without either of them, they dare not enter the market in a state in which their product is comparitively underwhelming compared to the much superior technology of their competitors. Nintendo didn't want to play the same game anymore, or at least, play it the same way. If you look closely, there is
nothing "innovative" about the Revolution. Nintendo was not the first to come up with the idea of a motion-sensitive controller. And if you ask me, the Wii controller again brings to mind the point I repeated earlier - so far what we've seen, people don't give a rat's ass
how they play. Which is why we've seen nothing but failure with the likes of the Virtual Boy or the console light-gun games. Which is why the Eye-Toy never made a big splash.
Let's face it - the gaming populace is very unwelcoming of changes that are too soon, too fast or too radical. Which is why I am not too fond of the idea behind the Wii controller (and let's not forget the arm aches you're about to get after an hour of swinging swords in-game).
But if I might add, what will ultimately end up giving Nintendo a jump on it's competitors is not it's "innovative" products (that's just a marketing ploy, the Wii is about as "innovative" as a freakin' dishwasher), but rather it's increasingly competetive pricing. And as Dell's own business model has shown, it's a dangerously effective strategy.
In general terms, the consumer is always price conscious, apprehensive of paying a premium for new, advanced technology. Speaking loosely, Nintendo is declaring a price war on it's competitors, but how much of an effect it would have on the competitors themselves is hard to say with complete certainty (but in my opinion, very little). In my estimation, it's not just the price of the Wii which is different, it's the demographic. Nintendo knows it can't take a slice of the pie both Sony and Microsoft are fighting over as well, so they decide to bake their own. Essentially speaking, Nintendo is trying to create a new market for the Wii, which will largely focus on the mainstream buyer and new adopters rather than the relatively more specific target market of the mainstream
gamer. Perhaps that would explain the dirt-cheap pricing and the simple, accessible hardware. Good for luring in fresh fish who want a taste of virtual reality but don't want to blow over $300 for it.
So there you have it. My two cents.
]
