Some games won't ever feel good to play without physical buttons and/or sticks. No matter how good streaming gets.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I think that Sony and Microsoft are going to have to change things to stay ahead of Nintendo in the future
- Thread starter correojon
- Start date
Microsoft and Sony don't have to change anything.
They already offer a far better value, as well as better services for the money.
They already offer a far better value, as well as better services for the money.
Why everything always needs to be company x vs y vs z? The can all coexist, and one company don't need to fail for the other to succeed. If you need others to fail for you to succeed then you were just mediocre to begin with. That being said, MS, Nintendo and Sony will be fine.
Nintendo haters: Nintendo should stop making home consoles and go third party.
Nintendo releases Switch instead.
Haters: Wait, that's illegal.
Nintendo releases Switch instead.
Haters: Wait, that's illegal.
I agree,I rolled my eyes when his argument was Sony/MS games is only attractive because of pretty graphics, and also expecting they to still has the edge on hardware power,but for some reaason the game would lose the appeal and using ERA as a metric lol
That presumes that A) they are competing directly with Nintendo and therefore B) they need to somehow stay ahead of them.
Well, they're not.
Ever since the Wii, Nintendo has offered a product that is significantly different from what Sony & MS offer, with hardware that was/is underpowered relative to the competition and were/are generally unconventional systems by the general standards of consoles. The Wii and Wii U and were focused on fundamentally different kinds of controllers to offer new gameplay experiences, while the Switch is a hybrid handheld/home console. All three systems have vastly differently libraries from PlayStation & Xbox, lacking all but a few major AAA third-party titles (and the ones they did get were significant downgrades from the PS/Xbox versions). The main draw of the past three Nintendo systems has been Nintendo games, which utterly dominate the million-sellers lists on those systems.
Because of this, people who buy a Nintendo system are probably highly likely to also own a contemporaneous PlayStation and/or Xbox system. For the U.S. market in specific, there were at least two Nielsen surveys indicating high overlap between Wii owners and PS3/360 owners (I have both a 360 and Wii), and NPD's Mat Piscatella posted a tweet some months ago indicating that the majority of Switch owners also owned a PS4 and/or an XBO (I own all three).
Meanwhile, PlayStation and Xbox offer nearly identical products, being conventional system comparable in terms of power and sharing at least 90% of the same games as each other. The primary differences are their libraries of first-party and second-party titles, their controllers, and their UIs. While the competition between then is not a zero-sum contest, as demonstrated by the existence of people that own both PS and Xbox (including myself), there's probably a lot less overlap.
Well, they're not.
Ever since the Wii, Nintendo has offered a product that is significantly different from what Sony & MS offer, with hardware that was/is underpowered relative to the competition and were/are generally unconventional systems by the general standards of consoles. The Wii and Wii U and were focused on fundamentally different kinds of controllers to offer new gameplay experiences, while the Switch is a hybrid handheld/home console. All three systems have vastly differently libraries from PlayStation & Xbox, lacking all but a few major AAA third-party titles (and the ones they did get were significant downgrades from the PS/Xbox versions). The main draw of the past three Nintendo systems has been Nintendo games, which utterly dominate the million-sellers lists on those systems.
Because of this, people who buy a Nintendo system are probably highly likely to also own a contemporaneous PlayStation and/or Xbox system. For the U.S. market in specific, there were at least two Nielsen surveys indicating high overlap between Wii owners and PS3/360 owners (I have both a 360 and Wii), and NPD's Mat Piscatella posted a tweet some months ago indicating that the majority of Switch owners also owned a PS4 and/or an XBO (I own all three).
Meanwhile, PlayStation and Xbox offer nearly identical products, being conventional system comparable in terms of power and sharing at least 90% of the same games as each other. The primary differences are their libraries of first-party and second-party titles, their controllers, and their UIs. While the competition between then is not a zero-sum contest, as demonstrated by the existence of people that own both PS and Xbox (including myself), there's probably a lot less overlap.
lol at OP thinking visuals are the reason people play PlayStation. The games Sony produces are really good even without the graphics.
Not only that, most people these days buy Xbox due to game pass and Halo. Does Nintendo have an answer to those? Same Nintendo that sell their games for max price?
Not only that, most people these days buy Xbox due to game pass and Halo. Does Nintendo have an answer to those? Same Nintendo that sell their games for max price?
Who or what are you talking about?
Nintendo will do their thing. There has been talk about diversifying their product portfolio for years, and they have taken steps (more merchandise and theme park - also rumors og tv and film production). They can't grow without following suit to the development of the industry, if all they're doing is the basically apply the same business model to each generation of console launches.
Xbox is clearly heading a different direction: they're giving up on the closed ecosystem, and I believe this will be their last generation of dedicated consoles if streaming takes off. Xbox clearly isn't about hardware now but a platform instead.
It seems Sony is confident staying the same, more or less. I know they're testing cloud-based gaming too, but whatever may happen, they're clearly dependent on their first party exclusives, which I believe is bold but also the best case scenario. They can transition to a hardware-free future and still be succesful.
In all of this, I see Microsoft and Sony being more willing to team up for future ventures (I believe they already have in terms of cloud-based gaming) to deter Google, Amazon or possibly Apple. I don't think they like the notion og their time and cash invested suddenly becoming yet another stream of revenue for the "other big three" just because their platforms are huge and succesful already.
Xbox is clearly heading a different direction: they're giving up on the closed ecosystem, and I believe this will be their last generation of dedicated consoles if streaming takes off. Xbox clearly isn't about hardware now but a platform instead.
It seems Sony is confident staying the same, more or less. I know they're testing cloud-based gaming too, but whatever may happen, they're clearly dependent on their first party exclusives, which I believe is bold but also the best case scenario. They can transition to a hardware-free future and still be succesful.
In all of this, I see Microsoft and Sony being more willing to team up for future ventures (I believe they already have in terms of cloud-based gaming) to deter Google, Amazon or possibly Apple. I don't think they like the notion og their time and cash invested suddenly becoming yet another stream of revenue for the "other big three" just because their platforms are huge and succesful already.
I'm sure you will have fun playing the next Zelda or God of War on your mobile, I for one, will never play those on any mobile device. I can see streaming offer a alternative option for a portion of the gaming market but it's the games and the unique interactions with games that will determine the next big hit and I don't think streaming services have a good way of offering innovation in interfaces and unique hardware. Ultimately it's the games that will determine who plays what. If streaming services offer the same type of games then I don't see them growing the market at all. It will mainly be a competitor to the current PC market and Steam.
But plenty of Xbox exclusives looked just as pretty to the casual player as PS first party output, and PS still sold more consoles and first party games.
Like part of that is the console base, yeah. But obviously graphics aren't the only important thing if Sony's games are a selling point when the XSX has better graphics and the PS5 has just as much if not more hype around it?
Huh? Are you browsing a different forum than the rest of us? The thirst is real.
I love my Switch. Actually I hate the console itself, but I mean I love the amazing exclusive software on it, and use it pretty much every day. That being said, Sony/MS are in no way under threat from Nintendo.
For all its great software, the Switch still:
For all its great software, the Switch still:
- Has a comically piss-poor online platform. No party chat? Adding friends via long codes? Seriously, it's a decade behind the times, and that's being generous.
- Underpowered hardware. It's usually going to offer the absolute worst version of multiplats (except for Indies which aren't hardware-constrained).
- Sorely lacking in AV features. No media playback software (I don't mean Plex and stuff, but not even a built-in player or Netflix app), no support for Dolby Vision / Atmos, no music streaming etc.
The thing is with switch 2:
So far from what i have seen from next gen games, they could run without a strugle on currentgen hardware. Yeah maybe less fps, res or lightning (which isnt a big improvement.)
Because of that the cards are different next gen in terms of gfx. So i dont they will be ahead next gen. Its more like marketing vs delivering something unqiue which is nintendos thing
So far from what i have seen from next gen games, they could run without a strugle on currentgen hardware. Yeah maybe less fps, res or lightning (which isnt a big improvement.)
Because of that the cards are different next gen in terms of gfx. So i dont they will be ahead next gen. Its more like marketing vs delivering something unqiue which is nintendos thing
What on earth are you talking about? "Couldn't compete?" What does that mean? They've sold more Switches in 3.5 years than MS sold XB1s in 7. Switch is outpacing the PS4, by a fair amount now.
Switch is a home console when it comes to pricing, marketing, sales and profit. They don't compete for the same market and never really have, but to act looks that dropped out of some imaginary console race because they "couldn't compete" is laughably revisionist.
Nintendo is doing their own thing. ME and Sony can keep doing what they're doing.
trump has Covid
trump has Covid
MS and Sony aren't really competing with Nintendo - if someone went to buy an Xbox or PlayStation instead of a Nintendo console it's probably because they don't care much for Nintendo games and tberes nothing Nintendo can do about that.
If people buy a Nintendo console instead of an Xbox or PlayStation its because those consoles don't have Mario, Pokemom, Animal Crossing and Zelda on them.
I don't see how either Sony or MS can make inroads with Nintendo customers - MS especially needs to keep appealing to the PC crowd to hop on their services as thay seems to be working out for them.
Nintendo also has an incredibly loyal base that will crawl over broken glass to get their games and consoles no matter what.
If people buy a Nintendo console instead of an Xbox or PlayStation its because those consoles don't have Mario, Pokemom, Animal Crossing and Zelda on them.
I don't see how either Sony or MS can make inroads with Nintendo customers - MS especially needs to keep appealing to the PC crowd to hop on their services as thay seems to be working out for them.
Nintendo also has an incredibly loyal base that will crawl over broken glass to get their games and consoles no matter what.
This is a very weird discussion when Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are doing great, have bright future prospects, and the gaming market is growing and bigger than ever.
I don't think Sony or Microsoft need to worry about Nintendo at all really, and Nintendo not worry about them. Nintendo has such incredibly strong IP they exist and will continue to exist in their own bubble. They will succeed as much as they can pump out quality software, and they continue to.
Sony and Microsoft are competing with each other, but both have been and will continue to be successful.
There is no real worry. No one is doomed. All three of the big players are looking better than ever.
I don't think Sony or Microsoft need to worry about Nintendo at all really, and Nintendo not worry about them. Nintendo has such incredibly strong IP they exist and will continue to exist in their own bubble. They will succeed as much as they can pump out quality software, and they continue to.
Sony and Microsoft are competing with each other, but both have been and will continue to be successful.
There is no real worry. No one is doomed. All three of the big players are looking better than ever.
Chill. Don't get so worked up about consoles.
I'm talking about the past, Gamecube, when they tried competing by making a console just as powerful as Sony and MS's with the only thing differentiating it being their games. Ever since then, they've gone their own way and been successful. Great for them. *applause*
Happy?
I'm very chill, thank you. It's a weird thing to say, they never really competed purely on power like you're suggesting. GameCube was never marketed as being more powerful than the PS2, and there were a ton of differences from the other consoles at the time besides the library. Such as the mini discs and the lunchbox design, those contributed heavily to the "kiddy" reputation it got but were intentional design choices that differentiated it (intentionally) from the other boxes.
They've never really competed directly with Sony and MS and acting like they tried but couldn't is frankly pretty console war-ey.
MS wants to see Nintendo do well. Sony simply expects the biggest Japanese game developers to choose them on technical grounds. But if Nintendo starts including things like 4K, HDR, RTX, DLSS, 120fps and throws in a SSD for good measure to close the gap it would still be hard to entice back the biggest names. The PS/XBOX/PC is a strong and stable proposition.
Achievements/Trophies and friend list and now BC are doing a better job keeping people locked into their ecosystem. Nintendo by contrast still doesn't have a native messaging system on Switch, is a bit hit & miss with BC and have a reward system that gives you good discounts and is in some ways better than what Xbox and PlayStation do but it can easily be missed and doesn't lend itself to "hunting".
Achievements/Trophies and friend list and now BC are doing a better job keeping people locked into their ecosystem. Nintendo by contrast still doesn't have a native messaging system on Switch, is a bit hit & miss with BC and have a reward system that gives you good discounts and is in some ways better than what Xbox and PlayStation do but it can easily be missed and doesn't lend itself to "hunting".
What's taking them so long? Switch has less online functionality than the PS3.
I dont see what this has to do with my statement - unless you think Switch or Nintendo are somewhat under performing right now because of the lacking online functionality.
No. They are performing much better than I ever expected. It's just mind boggling that a gaming company in 2020 lacks the basics in online communication.
What else would someone be referring to that Nintendo lack? All three of these companies use cloud infrastructures to both build their games, and for players to experience them. What Nintendo notably lack, is a streaming service. But as I say, I don't think that's much to be missing out in, in honesty.
Is this a Sony/Xbox only offer graphics and power thread?
Exactly. I read the OP like "wtf"
Exactly. I read the OP like "wtf"
Just general online services in the cloud. Nintendo are far behind in this regard.
The only problem with this analysis (and it's a big one) is that dating back to the Game & Watch Nintendo has clearly demonstrated a consistent trend selling portable devices at a mass-market volume, while also not getting in the way too much to adversely impact sales.
So the likelihood that the Switch follow-up will vastly deviate both in terms of design and consumer reach is incredibly low when factoring in Nintendo's history. Switch is less a one-off and more a continuation of what Nintendo already did well, albeit with the now extra caveat of being the home for their bigger budget titles as well.
I get the 'is that legal?' reference around here.... but nobody says that in relation to Nintendo making a successful product.
I have to disagree. While the gb line was pretty itterative. The DS was a huge break away from that and they found massive success with it. Then they tried to bring in another massive innovation with 3D in the 3DS and it bombed at launch to they point that nintendo had to cut the price by 30% and quickly started working to remove the feature entirely in the 2ds and then removing the feature again with the new 2ds XL. These drastic measures did help the 3ds recover and but it didn't get anywhere close to the success of the first ds.
Again just to restate what I said in the beginning of my other post. I wouldnt count on getting a Switch 3. A switch 2 is very likely but trying to predict what nintendo's going to be doing console design wise 7+ years from now (at the minimum) is a fools errand.
My feeling is that Sony and Microsoft are fully ready for platforms as a service options like Stadia, and this kind of thing will probably start to become more accepted in the next gen (Ps6 for example).
Nintendo? Not at all. We all know how it works with Nintendo on a network level for almost anything. And the day they manage to do it will be usung some convoluted reinvention of the wheel.
Nintendo? Not at all. We all know how it works with Nintendo on a network level for almost anything. And the day they manage to do it will be usung some convoluted reinvention of the wheel.
DLSS is not the Nintendo gamechanger some of you think it will be, at least not in the next few years/coming generation. And if graphics and power aren't important, why would DLSS matter?
But regardless, Nintendo will always be fine.
But regardless, Nintendo will always be fine.
First, Nintendo has never been doomed. Even during the Wii U era they still had good games coming out. The fact is their IP is so unique and long-lived that neither Sony or Microsoft can come close in terms of their type of game. On the other hand, the Switch hardly feels like a competitor to either of the other two. While some people may only have a Switch, there are many who have both a Switch and either the Xbox or Playstation just due to the different types of game experiences you get on these consoles. Sony & Microsoft are not doomed because of Nintendo, and Nintendo is not doomed because of them.
As further proof of this there still seems to be a lot of misconception about how PS2 is more powerful because of the marketing direction that each company took.
I'll take "Things that didn't happen" for 10,000 points, Alexa
Pricing is arguable. Marketing is also arguable, though considering all of the ads and promos I've seen of it Nintendo definitely positions it as a handheld hybrid given it's very obvious portable-first design.
Sales are not arguable in the least, however. Pre-consolidation, starting from the NES to the Wii U spanning 6 devices, Nintendo home consoles sold above 40 million only three times, above 60 million twice, and eclipsed the 80 million barrier once. In contrast for Nintendo handhelds pre consolidation, starting from the Game & Watch to the 3DS spanning 5/6 devices, pending on your view of the Virtual Boy, Nintendo handhelds sold more than 40 million units 5 times, more than 60 million units 4 times, and eclipsed the 80 million mark 3 times.
For further perspective, pre consolidation, if the Game & Watch were ranked in a Nintendo home console list in terms of sales performance it would be placed 4th, trailing 3rd (SNES) by roughly 5 million units. In contrast, on a similar list with Nintendo handhelds it would be placed either last or second to last, trailing the next placed device (3DS) by a substantial 30+ million units. And this is even with the 3DS being viewed as "failure" relative to it's time on the market in the same vein as the PS3!
So no, the sell rate quite EASILY says the Switch deviates closer to a typical Nintendo handheld rather than a Nintendo home console. To suggest otherwise - especially with the way we know the Switch is constructed - is a willful dismissal of historical data.
Which leaves profit - something that has a quite obvious answer once you give it some thought. We have to keep in mind that by Nintendo consolidating their hardware production and revenue streams, they downsized their production lines from 2 to 1. Now, for certain the 3DS lost Nintendo money - that isn't at all arguable. But so did the Wii U. And on the home console side, this didn't start with the Wii U but with the GCN that came before it (I know Nintendo as a whole was in the green, but the brunt of that was carried by the GBA). And while the N64 didn't lose Nintendo any money, it certainly didn't make them as much as they were expecting either. Meanwhile, outside of the 3DS (and, again VB pending on how you view it), there's no other Nintendo handheld you can definitively point to and say "that lost Nintendo money" - in fact you'd say the opposite.
So, adding the context of Nintendo's home consoles not doing so great commercially, on top of their decision to consolidate into a hybrid platform following the Wii U/3DS era - Nintendo's profits are soaring because they no longer have to carry the associated sunk costs of R&D, manufacturing, shipping, product recall, software development, marketing, shipping and storage, etc. that their home console brand ultimately devolved into. Without those constraints - and with Nintendo finally marrying the two things they were always good at, which is selling software and portable devices in high volume - we see the culmination of a strategy emphasizing their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses.
The 3DS "bombed" post launch, not at launch (so, the period between May 2011-Sep 2011).
And unlike the Wii U and it's GP, the 3D on the 3DS - while certainly positioned as the innovative selling point - was something that was already optional on the base 3DS to begin with. In other words, the 2DS didn't exist for people who didn't want 3D, it was made purely to get the barrier entry cost down in order to further drive sales. If you didn't want to play with 3D, you could just turn down the slider and be done with it.
But this is beside the point. The main point in my last post is that the ISP for a Nintendo portable isn't as much a determining factor for it's sales success because the portability aspect is already a compelling ISP in and of itself. Throw on top of that Nintendo's consistency of providing great games and their penchant of staying (mostly) out of their way with design choices vastly dissimilar to the comparable/analogous devices, and it's not really a wonder Nintendo can survive a momentous blunder like what 3D ended up being for them.
So basically, no matter what tertiary ISP or other differentiating traits the 3rd successive hybrid has, I contend it will be a success regardless as long as it's primary ISP is portability.
I'm talking about pricing of the console and games, that's directly in line with their past home consoles. Marketing wise they have been quite clearly calling it a home console you can take on the go. So they're calling it a home console themselves. And sales wise I was referring to software sales, which are FAR higher than any of Nintendo's past handhelds and much more in line with their home consoles.
I know the success of the Switch is largely tied to its portability but it's still competing for a home console marketplace in terms of price and marketing.
I don't think Nintendo really cares about eating into Sony/MS marketshare all that much. They're fine with those two having their 160-180 million consoles sold (however that split shakes out). As long as they get their 100 million Switch systems.
Now I do think they would like some of the higher prestige 3rd party games. Not even neccessarily day and date, but I think they would like the Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Call of Duty, Madden, to join what they have now. GTA would be nice, but Rockstar/Take 2 seems to have some vendetta maybe dating back to the N64 days if they're not willing to put GTA3/Vice City at least on Switch.
Now I do think they would like some of the higher prestige 3rd party games. Not even neccessarily day and date, but I think they would like the Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Call of Duty, Madden, to join what they have now. GTA would be nice, but Rockstar/Take 2 seems to have some vendetta maybe dating back to the N64 days if they're not willing to put GTA3/Vice City at least on Switch.
The Switch will hit 100 Million next calendar year probably, that's before it is even 5 years old, it's on its way to not just pass PS4 numbers, but challenge PS2 and DS, especially if next year's model can continue the momentum.
The point is I don't think Nintendo really views Sony/MS' portion of the pie as anything they really need. In fact those sales with basically not much AAA third party support probably if anything strengthens their belief that big 3rd party games and competing head to head with Sony/MS is not really a big deal.
They may even prefer Sony being happy in their spot so that they don't get any ideas and start thinking about making a hybrid (ditto for MS). Nintendo probably is more than happy to let them fight over the traditional big box home console market so long as they leave them be in the process.