• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion Did Nintendo leave the traditional console market?

Status
Not open for further replies.
They've differentiated themselves, their platforms, and their software to such a degree that they're mostly playing in a league of their own, while still very much also targeting parts of the more "traditional" console/gaming market with their hard- and software. It's not a simple binary "they've left" vs "they have not left" the traditional market. I think it's the most fitting approach for them specifically.
 
I see the Switch a new paradigm:
Like the Famicom introduced the concept of plug and play gaming machine, the Switch take this concept to another level: plug and play but everywhere you want. It's more a philosophical thing, but in Nes -> Snes -> N64 -> Gamecube -> Wii -> WiU the base concept was "stay in front of the tv and play the game with more or less evolved controller ", in Switch you have an evolved and inclusive controller, but the concept to play also everywhere with console game plus classic evolved controlled is another step.
 
Nintendo left the traditional console market (10-25 year old males) back in 2006 and never looked back.

Anything 3rd party they have subsequently picked up that targets that market is just a bonus.
 
Switch, I guess, is a handheld with TV output. It's obviously an overwhelming success that way, but I do wish it had better hardware.
 
0
It fulfills the tradcon (sorry) gaming formfactor if you want it to. They didn't leave it, it just got more flexible. Broader.
 
If the Wii and WiiU aren't traditional consoles, the only thing I can think that would set them apart would be the lack of a "normal," Xbox-style controller..?

So if that's the differentiating factor, that means the existence of the Pro Controller solidifies the Switch as a traditional console.

Checkmate, atheists.
If the existence of the Pro controller makes the Switch “traditional”, then what about the Wii’s Classic Controller and U’s Pro Controller? Shouldn’t those two systems be considered traditional as well in that case?
 
Nintendo is very clearly positioning the Switch as a console first, handheld second.
They are very clearly not given that all major revisions have improved the portable experience only:
  1. Longer battery life with the 2019 refresh
  2. Switch Lite which is handheld only
  3. Switch OLED which only changes the handheld experience
 
They are very clearly not given that all major revisions have improved the portable experience only:
  1. Longer battery life with the 2019 refresh
  2. Switch Lite which is handheld only
  3. Switch OLED which only changes the handheld experience
While those are all very true, the sort of games they're making and have made for the Switch is much more in line with what they've traditionally made on consoles than on handhelds. Plus the marketing and general terminology used for it are more in line with consoles than handhelds
 
If the Wii and WiiU aren't traditional consoles, the only thing I can think that would set them apart would be the lack of a "normal," Xbox-style controller..?

So if that's the differentiating factor, that means the existence of the Pro Controller solidifies the Switch as a traditional console.

Checkmate, atheists.
Switch has conventional inputs out of the box with the joy-cons, and a conventional feel with the joy-cons + grip. Honestly even the Wii U did. All have the same inputs as an Xbox/PS controller minus the analog triggers (L3/R3, ZL/ZR), the Wii U just has a tablet screen bolted to the middle and the Switch has split controls.

In that case, is the Gamecube an untraditional home console since its control scheme doesn't match the PS2 and original Xbox? :p

Just feels like we're splitting hairs to define what a 'traditional' home console is. I stand by my earlier point that with respect to the market, Nintendo never "left". There's still an option to buy a Nintendo home console in stores, including a Switch. If anything it's 'more traditional' because a person can ignore the hybrid feature entirely and leave the console docked all the time, while one couldn't really ignore the Wii remote or Wii U Gamepad.
 
While those are all very true, the sort of games they're making and have made for the Switch is much more in line with what they've traditionally made on consoles than on handhelds.
This is going to be cherry picking but...
  1. Pokemon
  2. Animal Crossing
  3. 2D Metroid
  4. Fire Emblem
  5. WarioWare
  6. 2D Zelda
  7. Clubhouse Games
  8. Luigi's Mansion (this is probably a big stretch but there's 2 LM games on 3DS to the 1 on GC)

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "the sort of games they're making and have made for the Switch is much more in line with what they've traditionally made on consoles than on handhelds.". I know a number of my examples started out on consoles but they've either been relegated to handhelds or sold better there for at least 1-2 decades at this point.
 
Last edited:
If the existence of the Pro controller makes the Switch “traditional”, then what about the Wii’s Classic Controller and U’s Pro Controller? Shouldn’t those two systems be considered traditional as well in that case?
Switch has conventional inputs out of the box with the joy-cons, and a conventional feel with the joy-cons + grip. Honestly even the Wii U did. All have the same inputs as an Xbox/PS controller minus the analog triggers (L3/R3, ZL/ZR), the Wii U just has a tablet screen bolted to the middle and the Switch has split controls.

In that case, is the Gamecube an untraditional home console since its control scheme doesn't match the PS2 and original Xbox? :p
I was just being jokey and sarcastic but yall just illustrated my confusion about the concept that Nintendo "left" the traditional console market with the Wii. If anything I'd say they're traditional consoles with non-traditional controllers.
 
This is going to be cherry picking but...
  1. Pokemon
  2. Animal Crossing
  3. 2D Metroid
  4. Fire Emblem
  5. WarioWare
  6. 2D Zelda
  7. Clubhouse Games
  8. Luigi's Mansion (this is probably a big stretch but there's 2 LM games on 3DS to the 1 on GC)

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "the sort of games they're making and have made for the Switch is much more in line with what they've traditionally made on consoles than on handhelds.". I know a number of my examples started out on consoles but they've either been relegated to handhelds or sold better there for at least 1-2 decades at this point.
So many of these have to do with the transition to HD and the Wii U software collapse

Animal Crossing was on everything before Wii U, and I'd bet anything New Horizons started development on it
2D Metroid wasn't handheld, it was dead
Fire Emblem was historically in a similar situation to Animal Crossing
2D Zelda is probably fair, but it's still the root of the series
Luigi's Mansion is the furthest stretch on here; 3 was confirmed to have started on Wii U iirc, and there were only two games before it

While we are seeing series originated or better known on handhelds, I think it does a lot of the series you listed a disservice to discredit their console presence
 
When I go to the retail store, I see Switch displayed next to the Xbox and PS it hooks up to my TV and the hybrid version sells the most.
The 'leaving the console market' is in my opinion not a well argued and debatable point championed by a subset of people, and most certainly has a havy subscription among not Nintendo fans to explain away Switch's success and pretend the console space only has the PS/Xbox.

Can't lose if you eliminate the top seller. Don't fall for that bullshit thinking.
 
They've differentiated themselves, their platforms, and their software to such a degree that they're mostly playing in a league of their own, while still very much also targeting parts of the more "traditional" console/gaming market with their hard- and software. It's not a simple binary "they've left" vs "they have not left" the traditional market. I think it's the most fitting approach for them specifically.
Can we get an amen? Thank you.

The quoted post so much. And while we're at it: Nintendo still competes while doing their own thing.
 
I was just being jokey and sarcastic but yall just illustrated my confusion about the concept that Nintendo "left" the traditional console market with the Wii. If anything I'd say they're traditional consoles with non-traditional controllers.
To my mind, the only reasonable interpretation of the claim is to describe platforms as peers that largely get the same games

The problem with this interpretation is that it breaks down historically.

NES was its own thing
SNES is perhaps the closest, with some """ports""" between it and Genesis
N64 is an arguable departure from consoles because it lost so much due to cartridges
GameCube also got a lot of multiplatform games and is accordingly another good example
Wii was in an entirely different power bracket
Wii U was better off than Wii but still massively weaker
Switch, if considered a console, is also massively weaker, even moreso with the introduction of PS5 and XS

so in summary, while I love considering questions like this, I have no idea what the answer is. "traditional home console" defies definition
 
What is a traditional console? Do we need to bring back TV overlays like the Magnavox Odyssey?
 
Traditional is such a loaded term, and it is a disservice to consoles with are portable in nature. Aside from a visual standpoint, portable gaming has been giving us console experiences in a portable form factor for a long time, since the GBA, and one can even argue the GBC as it gave us games as meaty - and even meatier when you look at Oracles, Shantae, Metal Gear Solid, Mario Tennis, etc. It was like 2 steps ahead of the NES. Like the TG-16 being a stop gap between Genesis/SNES and NES/SMS, this felt even ahead of the TG-16 with the types of games I got on the GBC (aside from visuals).

But let us ignore the GB/GBC line, and look at the GBA, DS, and 3DS. While obviously the visuals will not match the big boxes, the games were as substantial as what you would see on them. Sure, lots of throw away shovelware, but every super populour system had it; PS2 and Wii were loaded with crappy shovelware.
 
To my mind, the only reasonable interpretation of the claim is to describe platforms as peers that largely get the same games

The problem with this interpretation is that it breaks down historically.

NES was its own thing
SNES is perhaps the closest, with some """ports""" between it and Genesis
N64 is an arguable departure from consoles because it lost so much due to cartridges
GameCube also got a lot of multiplatform games and is accordingly another good example
Wii was in an entirely different power bracket
Wii U was better off than Wii but still massively weaker
Switch, if considered a console, is also massively weaker, even moreso with the introduction of PS5 and XS

so in summary, while I love considering questions like this, I have no idea what the answer is. "traditional home console" defies definition

I think it’s less that they’re peers in the sense that they get the same games, and moreso that they deliver comparable experiences. The Wii was the first console of any significance that didn’t even bother trying to maintain parity with its competitors in terms of tech/hardware power (which had always been the primary selling point for new platforms). Instead, they withdrew from that arms race and began focusing on developing offbeat and innovative ways for the user to engage with their games.

The PS5 and XSX are traditional because they are broadly interchangeable, and are both simply expanding on the same basic concept of the home console that’s existed for decades. Nintendo’s post GC home consoles are non-traditional because they’ve largely eschewed that concept, have been underpowered relative to other contemporary platforms, and have each innovated with hardware features that have no analog elsewhere in the industry (the Steam Deck is obviously following in the Switch’s footsteps now).
 
i'm assuming "traditional console market" is at least a decade old ideology but lemme tell you: the traditional console market doesn't exist anymore lol. it hasn't for years. nintendo, microsoft, sony—they're ALL doing their own thing. they might check each other's notes once in a while and attempt to compete in specific sectors but the "traditional" market is dead and gone. i guess you could argue that sony's the only one left sticking with that traditional mindset.

are they selling fuck tons of consoles and are still able to go toe to toe with the big dogs in terms of selling units and maintaining relevance? hell yeah absolutely.
did they leave the traditional console market? hell yeah absolutely. so did everyone else.
 
0
Since all of Nintendo's consoles have sought the same games from the same developers as the other "traditional console" players, no they have not left the traditional console market.

However, Nintendo has definitely done two things since the Wii: 1) abandoned the pursuit of bleeding edge graphics as the primary driver of new hardware, and 2) de-prioritized the males 12-24 demographic. Those changes in Nintendo's focus may have been the result of Sony/MS going all-in on that group, which has left an Animal Crossing-sized underserved market elsewhere. Also, this philosophy creates noticeable differences in the way they're discussed.

The reason why many in this thread are bristling at the suggestion that "Nintendo doesn't make traditional consoles" is that the main group of people you'll see make this argument tend to use it to dismiss Nintendo's success or justify lack of coverage. The claim has little to do with the realities of the game console market.
 
No, Microsoft did. They’re trying to be hardware agnostic and subscription focused. By comparison, Sony and Nintendo still rely on their differentiating hardware and physical game sales. And to be clear, that’s not a knock on Microsoft at all.
 
Idk what a traditional console market is in 2022, but thank god Nintendo isn't trying to just sell me a box with HDMI ports on it is all I gotta say.
 
That makes no sense since the Wii is still a traditional console regardless of what enthusiasts think.

Also what they re-entered the traditional console market with the Wii U or were still not apart of it?
What I meant was that the Wii was not traditional in the sense that it was not designed to compete with the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of graphics and hardware. The Wii was not HD and did not have a traditional controller in the way that the other consoles had, you could use a GameCube controller or buy the classic controller add on, but the Wii remote + Nunchuk were so different when compared to the other consoles.

They’ve been out of the traditional console market since the Wii. GameCube was their last traditional console.
This is what I believe, the GameCube was the last traditional console they released in that it was on par with the PS2 and OG Xbox in graphics, it had a controller with four face buttons, two thumb sticks, a D-pad, two shoulder buttons plus the Z button and a Start/Select button. While 3rd party developers still weren't putting out as much as they were on the SNES days it was definitely more than the N64.

What comes to mind when I think of a traditional game console it's doing everything that you did before but improving on the systems hardware. The Wii might have been a little stronger than the GameCube, but it was anything but traditional. It had a remote control that you could attach different add-ons to control your characters on screen, instead of using the control stick you would point and click selecting options and in some cases that is how you moved your character.


Regarding the Wii U, even with it being an HD console it still tried to do things differently with the Gamepad. Nintendo wanted to try and shake up the industry they wanted to create new ways of enjoying entertainment than what was previously available, for developers and creators to think outside the box and genuinely think about just what exactly a game could be.

I mean look at the DS, I wouldn't say the DS was a traditional handheld it was like a mix between a palm pilot and a GBA. It also had some unique games (Rub Rabbits, Feel the Magic: XY/XX, Electroplankton, and Nintendogs just to name a few).


 
A hyrbid still serves both markets, which was the entire point. This is like saying Nintendo also abandoned the handheld console market, but they're still serving that segment too. The reality is Switch is the successor to both the DS and Wii family lines.

The only console maker who truly abandoned s hardware segment was Sony with handhelds after Vita.
 
To my mind, the only reasonable interpretation of the claim is to describe platforms as peers that largely get the same games

The problem with this interpretation is that it breaks down historically.

NES was its own thing
SNES is perhaps the closest, with some """ports""" between it and Genesis
N64 is an arguable departure from consoles because it lost so much due to cartridges
GameCube also got a lot of multiplatform games and is accordingly another good example
Wii was in an entirely different power bracket
Wii U was better off than Wii but still massively weaker
Switch, if considered a console, is also massively weaker, even moreso with the introduction of PS5 and XS

so in summary, while I love considering questions like this, I have no idea what the answer is. "traditional home console" defies definition

Would for sure disagree that the Wii U was massively weaker. Or weaker to begin with. 3rd parties half adding some ports, but Nintendos in house stuff look better than the PS3 and 360 games. But that system not only had terrible marketing, it came out quite a few years too late in the game with the PS4 around the corner.
 
Would for sure disagree that the Wii U was massively weaker. Or weaker to begin with. 3rd parties half adding some ports, but Nintendos in house stuff look better than the PS3 and 360 games. But that system not only had terrible marketing, it came out quite a few years too late in the game with the PS4 around the corner.
I think the weaker argument stems from timing. I remember when WiiU ports were being hailed as the definitive versions of 360/PS3 games, as it was pushing better shadows and particle effects, and one thing in particular I remember was Need for Speed was able to have more cars on track because the WiiU could handle it. IIRC Bayonetta 1 ran better on it, as well. So it was a little stronger than its peers at launch, but as you pointed out it wasn't on the market for long before the Xbone/PS4 came out, at which point it was massively weaker.

I've said a bunch that it's like Nintendo added a generation with the Wii, if we're talking just about graphics power. It wasn't much of a leap over the previous gen, while the 360/PS3 were. So by the time the WiiU came out, it was on par with PS3, at the time the PS4 was around. Dane will bring Nintendo up to PS4 level, at a time when PS5 is around. I've basically just accepted that Nintendo will continue to just be one gen behind in graphics (which is fine for me because I think we're getting to a point of diminishing returns in that regard anyway), while making up for it by being one of the best in the biz at art direction and polish.

Fyi at one point in the last paragraph my phone tried to autocorrect "Nintendo" to "Mints tho"
 
I think the weaker argument stems from timing. I remember when WiiU ports were being hailed as the definitive versions of 360/PS3 games, as it was pushing better shadows and particle effects, and one thing in particular I remember was Need for Speed was able to have more cars on track because the WiiU could handle it. IIRC Bayonetta 1 ran better on it, as well. So it was a little stronger than its peers at launch, but as you pointed out it wasn't on the market for long before the Xbone/PS4 came out, at which point it was massively weaker.

I've said a bunch that it's like Nintendo added a generation with the Wii, if we're talking just about graphics power. It wasn't much of a leap over the previous gen, while the 360/PS3 were. So by the time the WiiU came out, it was on par with PS3, at the time the PS4 was around. Dane will bring Nintendo up to PS4 level, at a time when PS5 is around. I've basically just accepted that Nintendo will continue to just be one gen behind in graphics (which is fine for me because I think we're getting to a point of diminishing returns in that regard anyway), while making up for it by being one of the best in the biz at art direction and polish.

Fyi at one point in the last paragraph my phone tried to autocorrect "Nintendo" to "Mints tho"

Well, if it wants to keep being a hybrid, with a strong focus as a handheld console as a selling point, it will always will be unless they want to 1. have it way more expensive, which would place it out of the audience it targets, and 2. have it come at the expense of size and 3. battery life.

Unless they go PC in box like the other 2 console makers, there will be a compromise unless they say fuck it and go for something bulkier than a SteamDeck, with just as bad or worse battery life, and a price tag that is not family friendly.
 
Well, if it wants to keep being a hybrid, with a strong focus as a handheld console as a selling point, it will always will be unless they want to 1. have it way more expensive, which would place it out of the audience it targets, and 2. have it come at the expense of size and 3. battery life.

Unless they go PC in box like the other 2 console makers, there will be a compromise unless they say fuck it and go for something bulkier than a SteamDeck, with just as bad or worse battery life, and a price tag that is not family friendly.
Yeah no doubt. And like I said, I'm fine with it because graphics aren't really a selling point for me anymore. Xenoblade X is probably still my favorite-looking game ever, and that's a generation or two old, depending on how you look at it. I see stuff like the Matrix UE5 demo and I just think "man, I just don't need all that" like it's getting to a point where high-end games just bombard my eyes more so than they actually look good. Plus one of the weak points imo of Nintendo's past couple generations is that a lot of the games I do like (JRPGs, platformers, indies) went to their handhelds and that's a form factor I'm not comfortable with. But the Switch being a hybrid brought everybody under one roof and therefore brought me the biggest and best game library I've ever had. If the trade-off for keeping that hybrid nature is that they stay behind on graphics, that's fine. 👍
 
Yup, Nintendo also left the handheld market in 1989 with the Game Boy, that underpowerered piece of recycled garbage.

Nintendo hasn't been in any traditional business since they ditched love hotels.
 
Yup, Nintendo also left the handheld market in 1989 with the Game Boy, that underpowerered piece of recycled garbage.

Nintendo hasn't been in any traditional business since they ditched love hotels.
Oh wait, they ditched the hotels..?
I actually hadn't heard that.
 
Yeah no doubt. And like I said, I'm fine with it because graphics aren't really a selling point for me anymore. Xenoblade X is probably still my favorite-looking game ever, and that's a generation or two old, depending on how you look at it. I see stuff like the Matrix UE5 demo and I just think "man, I just don't need all that" like it's getting to a point where high-end games just bombard my eyes more so than they actually look good. Plus one of the weak points imo of Nintendo's past couple generations is that a lot of the games I do like (JRPGs, platformers, indies) went to their handhelds and that's a form factor I'm not comfortable with. But the Switch being a hybrid brought everybody under one roof and therefore brought me the biggest and best game library I've ever had. If the trade-off for keeping that hybrid nature is that they stay behind on graphics, that's fine. 👍

Have you tried getting a grip for handheld play? Or is it just the overall small screen.

I am usually comfortable with handheld, but the new OLED Switch has an awesome kickstand finally, so I will literally prop it on a small tray table in front of me and whip out my SNES controller lol
 
Have you tried getting a grip for handheld play? Or is it just the overall small screen.

I am usually comfortable with handheld, but the new OLED Switch has an awesome kickstand finally, so I will literally prop it on a small tray table in front of me and whip out my SNES controller lol
The form factor is actually comfortable in my hands, it's more the looking-down-at-a-small-screen that I don't like. I do it in short bursts on my phone, but the few times I played a DS or 3DS game consistently for a while wasn't super comfy on my neck or eyes. The kickstand and being able to set it up that way is rad, but the only time that would ever be useful for me is while traveling by plane, and, ya know, covid threw a wrench in a lot of my travel plans. 😅
 
0
This is going to be cherry picking but...
  1. Pokemon
  2. Animal Crossing
  3. 2D Metroid
  4. Fire Emblem
  5. WarioWare
  6. 2D Zelda
  7. Clubhouse Games
  8. Luigi's Mansion (this is probably a big stretch but there's 2 LM games on 3DS to the 1 on GC)

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "the sort of games they're making and have made for the Switch is much more in line with what they've traditionally made on consoles than on handhelds.". I know a number of my examples started out on consoles but they've either been relegated to handhelds or sold better there for at least 1-2 decades at this point.
For many of them, I'd say it's more so they skipped the Wii U than being relegated to being handheld games
 
What I meant was that the Wii was not traditional in the sense that it was not designed to compete with the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of graphics and hardware. The Wii was not HD and did not have a traditional controller in the way that the other consoles had, you could use a GameCube controller or buy the classic controller add on, but the Wii remote + Nunchuk were so different when compared to the other consoles.
This still makes little to no sense. In this regard both the GC & N64 were not part of the traditional market for their weird control scheme and/or media format

The Wii was absolutely competing with the PS360 even if hardware or control wise it didn’t. Why else would Sony & MST try to copy the Wii in control and software targeting at a certain paint in time.
 
The Wii was absolutely competing with the PS360 even if hardware or control wise it didn’t. Why else would Sony & MST try to copy the Wii in control and software targeting at a certain paint in time.

Oh it didn't just compete with them. It utterly trounced them in terms of sales.
 
This still makes little to no sense. In this regard both the GC & N64 were not part of the traditional market for their weird control scheme and/or media format

The Wii was absolutely competing with the PS360 even if hardware or control wise it didn’t. Why else would Sony & MST try to copy the Wii in control and software targeting at a certain paint in time.
Okay, I can see your points regarding N64 and GCN. I am curious though, in your opinion what about Wii makes it traditional console?
 
Oh it didn't just compete with them. It utterly trounced them in terms of sales.
It sure did. Yet people for some reason leave it out of the discussion and just leave it open to only the PS3/360 because the Wii didn’t count for some weird reason. Same way DS and GBA and 3DS don’t count for whatever weird reason.

Honestly, it all comes down to fanboy gate keeping in the end. They are all consoles really.

And when it’s something that’s different or they don’t like, it’s a “gimmick”. Which I really hate as a term. It’s games. Games should allow new ways to play or have an experience by its very nature.

I never had an OG 3DS cause knowing Nintendo I knew they would make an XL and then that comes out and rumors of a refresh started so I decided to wait and then Japan got the New and waited even more for it to come to the U.S.

The 3D on the New models is great. Not one issue with it. And people say gimmick, but it sure the heck made games that utilized it well feel immersive.
 
Okay, I can see your points regarding N64 and GCN. I am curious though, in your opinion what about Wii makes it traditional console?
What do we define as traditional?
Cause the way I see it the Wii was set up just like the consoles before and after it. And, while the console did not eschew to the growing paradigm of HD & more power it still was a leap from GC. The only difference was the controller but Nintendo was doing that for two gens beforehand. If we talk about audience it hyper tapped into a new & burgeoning market that phones would take away from, then runaway with. But the previous successful machines absolutely had these people onboard to reach the numbers that they did.
 
It sure did. Yet people for some reason leave it out of the discussion and just leave it open to only the PS3/360 because the Wii didn’t count for some weird reason. Same way DS and GBA and 3DS don’t count for whatever weird reason.

Honestly, it all comes down to fanboy gate keeping in the end. They are all consoles really.

And when it’s something that’s different or they don’t like, it’s a “gimmick”. Which I really hate as a term. It’s games. Games should allow new ways to play or have an experience by its very nature.

I never had an OG 3DS cause knowing Nintendo I knew they would make an XL and then that comes out and rumors of a refresh started so I decided to wait and then Japan got the New and waited even more for it to come to the U.S.

The 3D on the New models is great. Not one issue with it. And people say gimmick, but it sure the heck made games that utilized it well feel immersive.
.....did it really outperform ps3/xbox 360 though?most people buying a wii was just grandma who wanted to try out this wii sports thing she heard about have her fun and then never touch it again.they really weren't even chasing the same market until ps move and especially kinect.
it was very much a console,just not one chasing the typical demographic.

the whole reason the wii u gamepad was even a thing to begin with is to have a more traditional controller to bring back customers they lost to the ps3 and 360 with the wii as well as keep doing their blue ocean strategy at the same time.
they saw the writing on the wall in regards to appealing to casual players so they tried appealing to both demographics and ended up pleasing no one.

3ds is kinda weird with it's gimmick tbh. they initially made a pretty big deal about glasses free 3d but after the first year it just kind of faded into the background.hell,alot of later 3ds games flat out didn't even support 3d.
 
.....did it really outperform ps3/xbox 360 though?most people buying a wii was just grandma who wanted to try out this wii sports thing she heard about have her fun and then never touch it again.they really weren't even chasing the same market until ps move and especially kinect.
it was very much a console,just not one chasing the typical demographic.

the whole reason the wii u gamepad was even a thing to begin with is to have a more traditional controller to bring back customers they lost to the ps3 and 360 with the wii as well as keep doing their blue ocean strategy at the same time.
they saw the writing on the wall in regards to appealing to casual players so they tried appealing to both demographics and ended up pleasing no one.

3ds is kinda weird with it's gimmick tbh. they initially made a pretty big deal about glasses free 3d but after the first year it just kind of faded into the background.hell,alot of later 3ds games flat out didn't even support 3d.

A lot didn’t support it… but around the end and start of 2018 when support started dying. It stuck with it until pretty much the Switch was the only thing anyone talking about. Heck, Samus Returns had 3D and to good effect.

And it being glasses free is a big deal. Especially when it is optional. That’s the key word, because while some complained about it having it, you can just… turn it off. It’s almost as if some people dislike options they don’t have to utilize.

The reason I don’t like 3D in generally is because I don’t want to wear glasses. The 3DS was cool because I didn’t have to do anything and it did add a level of immersion on some games, even if small. Pilot Wings, a cool first person dungeon crawler, the dungeons in Link Between World, or the storybook visuals of Bravely Default.

But the best thing is if you didn’t care for it… turn it off.

As for the Wii, sure it counts. They went after a broader audience instead of focusing on the typical audience. That’s a good thing. As for it being mostly grandmas, I really need evidence of that.

I think it sure did sell to a lot of casual players with Wii Sports and casual party style games, but I also don’t think over 30 million grandmas bought Mario Kart.

It attracted a lot of casual people, and it counts. But the Wii was also had perfect timing. The market was different when it released and by the time smart phone truly exploded in 2010 with mobile gaming, and that market went there. Much like the DS as well.
 
Last edited:
The worst insult one can redirect to Nintendo is to be traditional (meaning it adheres to preconceived standards) and derivative.
Nintendo's fortunes vert on providing surprising and unique concepts to entertain people.

Tradition play a part in Nintendo's strategy (how their IPs and pursue of fun are transgenerational) but isn't a roadblock to their tirelessly research for innovation.

Nintendo, in the past, has explained very clearly what is their DNA:
 
What do we define as traditional?
Cause the way I see it the Wii was set up just like the consoles before and after it. And, while the console did not eschew to the growing paradigm of HD & more power it still was a leap from GC. The only difference was the controller but Nintendo was doing that for two gens beforehand. If we talk about audience it hyper tapped into a new & burgeoning market that phones would take away from, then runaway with. But the previous successful machines absolutely had these people onboard to reach the numbers that they did.
Okay I see what you mean, I guess what I was getting hung up on was the controls. I agree the N64 and the GameCube were not set up the same as the previous consoles before it, but when I think of what made the Wii unique from what came before it was that until that point I had never used motion controls as the main method to play my games. I appreciate your views on the matter.
 
No. Software wise Nintendos approach to their hardware is even more traditional than any other hardware maker.
 
I’m not sure what the switch does that makes it so far removed from the other two consoles. Besides being portable, for all intents and purposes the switch is the closest to a traditional console from Nintendo in a long time.

It’s just a screen and controller input in the same schematics as the other consoles

And in docked, it’s… a screen with a controller input in the same schematic as the other consoles.


Also, portable consoles have been around since like the 80s.
 
MS and Sony are definitely not the reason they left the traditional home console market. One of the biggest reason I'd say is that they always had an horrible relationship with 3rd party devs. Sony and MS would work closely with 3rd party to design a console they would be excited to support (Specially western devs and engine makers) while Nintendo would be like "Fuck this" we going with cartridges or mini dvds or a non HD console, etc..

Remember Nintendo's favorite thing to say? "Our job is to sell alot of console and 3rd party will come" or something along the lines.
 
0
Uh. Did Sony and Nintendo make Microsoft "leave" the "traditional" console market and make Game Pass?

Or are all of the big 3 constantly adapting to the changing market? Also, leaving? They all make video game machines you plug into a television?
 
I think I have an apt analogy for this conversation. I’m going to compare console technology to historic construction and design

I work for a company that designs office buildings for developers and other private business clients. We are currently in a market where a lot of value exists in nostalgia for traditional architecture, especially if it was unique or well designed; this leads to many clients wanting to mimic historic architecture because it sells very well. Traditional styles of architecture, especially popular ones at the turn of the 20th century were a product of the limitations of what could be built in a market that was dominated by load-bearing masonry - construction technology has long left this behind, so when you build something to mimic that style you are paying a considerable premium because it is inefficient.

Gaming technology has moved similarly; to design a “traditional console” where a box plugs into a tv plays on something that is familiar and popular, but ignores the inherent efficiency and opportunities present within current technological advancement. Car design is another great example of this: as technology discards the internal combustion engine, designs are still choosing to place new technology into something that resembles the previous standard-bearer, and this has always been the case. The first cars were designed to look like motorized carriages without the horse. Greek and Roman architecture mimicked timber construction. I could go on and on

In conclusion, I believe the premise of this thread is misstated- Nintendo didn’t “leave” traditional console hardware… time and technology did, and choosing to reverse engineer something to capitalize on (admittedly popular) nostalgia is a perfectly valid approach, but it requires swimming against the current
 
0
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom