Slashdot Mirror
When Consoles Lose, Everyone Wins
Ground Glass writes "Does the traditional knowledge that 'history is written by the winners' hold true with consoles? Perhaps, but there's more to it than that. Sometimes, systems that fail do so because their most salient concept was one no one was ready for - these provide future 'innovations'. Sometimes their loudest message was one only a niche group would ever want to listen to - they provide much needed perspective. In an early medium, the failures are the ones questioning what a game should be. It's no wonder the winners keep writing their ideas back in."
The value to any one person is based on perception. If you perceive worth, then it is valuable.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
What a great console. First to have online gameplay (for all 4-5 games that had it) and it was night vs day compared to the PS1. Too bad piracy, Sega pissing off EA, and a multitude of other problems caused it's downfall. It served it's purpose and paved the way for what we have today but think about what the world might be like if Sega was still in the console business...
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
That zonk's bias isn't towards the 360, but rather consoles. I don't mind his stories, and neither do most people. The ps3 fanbois just cry a lot because it's all bad news about their consoles. They never stopped to consider that it's simply because there's no _good_ news about their infamous ps3.
Well, two issues there. The first is Nintendo making a cool console that has appeal. That's the gimmick that I mention. I don't think Nintendo is really trying to change the industry (thoug hI'm sure they wouldn't mind) -- I think they are trying to define a space for themselves. I happen to think they'll succeed. I personally will buy a Wii, not because I think it will be the best console, but because it's cheaper and it's a game console, not a media center. True-to-form for the industry.
This brings me to your second point, which I think is very valid -- Sony and MS have chosen to focus on too much more than games. If anything, Nintendo's innovation here is that they are returning to the roots of consoles -- providing a way for people to have fun playing video games.
Maybe feature bloat is killing the big consoles.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It's true. All Nintendo wants to do is ensure that they don't go out of business. They realize that they don't have the resources that MS and Sony have to throw around in research and development. Since both of those will probably out power (statistically) anything Nintendo can through, they're taking the third road, not compete. By flat out removing themselves from the competition, they stay alive. They're attempting to cater to a different brand of gamers, the "casual", and the "classic". With the innovations, they're going to get people who are otherwise afraid of the scary controllers of the Cube, Box, and PS2. And by bringing in the backwards compatibility, they're keeping the die-hard gamers who want their Super Mario Bros. 3. And of course there's the sales they'll get just by being Nintendo. They're not trying to be different, they have to be different.
Cynical Idealist
I certainly agree, but the issue I have is when people base a console solely be its processing power (Re: "despite the inferiority of their machine"). The general public has been duped into believing that more polygons=better system.
It's not hardware alone that makes a gaming console. I would say that the games themselves play a bigger role in my purchasing decision. Blue-Ray, HDD's, and all that fancy jazz are, at least in my opinion, just filler attempting to make up for inferior games.
Nintendo will probably stick around solely for the ability to make good, and more importantly, fun games. Throw in the curiosity factor with the (oi...the name makes me cringe) WiiMote, and you have a company that's going to be a big player this round.