|
Fulchrum posted:Because there is no middle ground between a guy who is willing to spend $1500 a year on a gaming PC, and people who only play smartphone games. None at all. No one spends $1500 a year on a gaming PC, but good work trotting out an argument against it from the late '90s, it's always enjoyable when that one is used unironically.
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Gee, when a person is highlighting two extremes in an argument, could it be possible that they're, shock horror, hyperbolic?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
I think a big problem for the WiiU is that I can't tell who its audience is. The Wii had a solid grasp of its audience: people who wouldn't otherwise be playing games. It attracted them by having a low price, an easy-to-understand control method and a killer app, and it benefited by tapping into the cultural zeitgeist. It had a crystal-clear identity. Who is the WiiU for? What is its identity other than "next generation lite?" Can it trade off the Wii's identity? No. The WiiU costs more, has a controller that's much more complex and lacks a defining game. Can it attract the "hardcore" crowd? Not likely. The WiiU looks to be substantially less powerful than the next Sony and Microsoft options. Those companies have mountains of cash and have been catering to that audience for the past few generations. Nintendo has been pointedly ignoring them. Is it likely to entice any new, untapped audience? No. The combination of a higher price and lack of buzz means it's unlikely mainstream non-gamers have even heard of the WiiU, never mind considered buying it. Even if they did, there are a bevy of games available for devices they already own. So, we're left with "Nintendo partisans." Not a small group, to be sure, but hardly one on which to anchor your new system.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Are people just now realizing this? I can think of a few potential reasons for the Wii U failure off the top of my head. Targeted towards an oversaturated niche The Wii was a revolutionary product that captured previously untapped demographics (soccer moms, old folks, and other casual gamers) instead of fighting Sony/MS head-on for the 18-35 year old hardcore gamer market. It's that whole 'blue ocean' marketing strategy; since there was no competition, the Wii raked in an absolute fortune. The Wii U, on the other hand, faces a casual gaming market already heavily saturated with low-cost games (Angry Birds, Farmville, plus existing Wii users); it no longer makes sense to sell a $370 casual gaming machine in a world of $0.99 cent apps. So-called hardcore gamers have been decidedly underwhelmed by the Wii U's "next gen" graphics and horsepower, leading me to wonder... who the hell did Nintendo expect to buy this thing? Stupid controller Interact with games through touch-- but only one player can use it! Stream games from your TV-- but it doesn't work for all of your games! Don't worry, you can still use the Wii Nunchuku controller, the Wii remote, the Wii Classic Controller or the Wii U Pro Controller with your Wii U console-- that's not confusing for anybody, is it? Admittedly, the original Wii's motion-sensing was a fun gimmick because it allowed exciting new play mechanisms, but IOS apps have already exhausted every potential touch-based control scheme: the Wii U gimmick was old before the console even launched. Poorly-executed roll-out No blockbuster must-buy launch titles (Wow, I can play Batman Arkham City all over again?!). Marketing and console name that fails to distinguish the the Wii U from the Wii. Console features missing, delayed or poorly implemented. It seems like they released a 70% complete console and figured they'd just do the rest through system updates. How has Nintendo not learned their lesson about launching consoles without a flagship title to drive sales? Mario'ed Out Nintendo has over-exploited its first-party gems. The nostalgia well has been tapped dry. You can see them digging deeper, plastering fond old memories (8-bit sprites and tanooki tails) all over their new rehashes, but their efforts are yielding fast-diminishing returns. They should have reined the Mario licensing in a long time ago; how does Nintendo seriously expect consumers to be excited about New Super Mario Bros 2 U 3D Deluxe, or Mario Party 13, or Mario Kart 8, or whatever the gently caress? Tell Miyamoto to take a back seat and let some new faces introduce some new IPs. I don't think Iwata will be CEO beyond a year; with two botched system launches under his belt and Nintendo floundering without any clear sense of direction, it seems glaringly obvious that Nintendo needs an internal shake-up if they want to succeed in an increasingly competitive industry. Also, I think their attitude towards making mobile apps ("no, never") is eerily reminiscent of their disdain for online multiplayer. It sucks that Nintendo has been making such missteps, because the industry needs their creativity and innovation. Hopefully they show some cool poo poo at E3 that allays everybody's concerns. edit; sorry Midwat, didn't realize I pretty much echoed your post!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
As the Gamecube showed, at the worst of times Nintendo can just count on catering to people who like Nintendo things, pushing the Mario brand heavily to draw in new purchases(as well as, sometimes, Zelda), and make enough of a profit to turn things around later on. I think people are expecting them to be on top every single generation, and whenever they're not they get poo poo all over and suddenly it's IS NINTENDO LEAVING THE GAME INDUSTRY? IS THIS THEIR FINAL CONSOLE?, which is nice for a headline but has never really held any substance. Even back when people were saying it about the N64. Nintendo doesn't need to be on top to stay profitable. They aren't going to have Wii level success again, it's too soon for that. Give it a generation or two, and around then we'll see them doing something more in line with what we'd expect in terms of success. Personally, I'd put my bets on some sort of convergence of the handheld/console marketspace for Nintendo in particular- basically just beef up the 3DS to whatever the 'modern' standard is, let it wirelessly output video to your TV and other players use controllers to join in, and you've essentially combined your handheld and console stuff into a single thing. Feels like the ideas behind the WiiU and 3DS are trending towards this, to me. Will it work? I dunno. But Nintendo's not going to stop making hardware unless they have no other choice whatsoever. We're talking them losing so much money that someone else buys controlling stock and forces them to do it. The WiiU won't lose them that kind of money, especially when the 3DS is doing so well.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
I really don't think the problem here is "People are sick of Mario games" and the next Mario Kart is going to sell tons of copies. Nintendo's done a poor job handling some of their franchises but that's not a good example of one. When compared to the number of consoles sold, New Mario U has done phenomenally well, so no, people aren't really sick of these games. They just want something else too. Also I don't know what 8-bit sprite games they're making that you're talking about but I'd like to play them! The rest of these points are mostly legit, but come on, "They make too many Mario games" is silly. Edit: "Why would anyone buy consoles when there's the PC??" has been dumb since 1990 and it's still dumb today even with Steam sorry. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 04:46 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
NewtGoongrich posted:I don't understand how there is a market for a dedicated video game console any more. Most casual gamers prefer to play games on their smartphones or their iPads, while Steam has made PC gaming an increasingly dominant force amongst gaming hobbyists. As far as I can tell, the only thing that keeps gaming hobbyists buying consoles is beloved old franchises not being available on the PC. I would consider myself a "hobbyist" and I prefer consoles to the PC. I hate having to screw around with ini files and poo poo to make my games run right, and most of the games I play (JRPGs, platformers, fighters, "character action games") work just as well or better with a controller than with a kb/m setup so I don't feel like I'm really losing anything but not playing on a PC. I'm also weird in that I sometimes prefer to create a separation between "PC time", which I invariably spend talking to my friends and reading forums and listening to music and poo poo, and "gaming time" which is when I lay in bed or stretch out on the couch and spend a couple hours losing myself in something like Dishonored (ideally disconnected from a constant barrage of Facebook updates and poo poo). It's strange, but trying to play a game on my PC often prevents me from playing it at all because I lose focus to social media or something. I definitely didn't have ADD as a kid, but I'm wondering if I do now and like contemporary western lifestyles foster it or something. Baku fucked around with this message at 04:48 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
OLIVIAS WILDE RIDER posted:No one spends $1500 a year on a gaming PC, but good work trotting out an argument against it from the late '90s, it's always enjoyable when that one is used unironically. But I think he showed, rather unintentionally, why consoles still have a place. In public consciousness, PC gaming is still viewed as something expensive and unwieldy. Patching and drivers and such are far far less complicated than they were in the 90s, people still think these are complicated things to do. And in terms of while PCs still cost more than a console the money you save on the games makes up for it over time, people often DO still think to get a decent gaming PC you need to pay exorbitant amounts of money every 6 months, even if it hasnt been true in at least a decade. Consoles on the other hand offer a perceived "easy solution", you plug it in and play. I'd argue consoles have gotten just as complicated as PCs because you have to do a lot of patching and junk on consoles now but to the public its still perceived as easier because you don't need to check specs or anything, if its the right system it just "works". And for your average person the graphics gap isnt wide enough to matter. All of this is based off bad info, and I acknowledge that. It still persists though and affects why people buy consoles instead. Consoles do have an advantage for local play. PCs tend to not support split screen. They COULD bu they tend to choose not to, where as consoles its a lot more common.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:As the Gamecube showed, at the worst of times Nintendo can just count on catering to people who like Nintendo things, pushing the Mario brand heavily to draw in new purchases(as well as, sometimes, Zelda), and make enough of a profit to turn things around later on.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
"Consoles are just as complicated as PCs" is 100% wrong even if people do over exaggerate how complicated getting a good gaming PC going is.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Consoles are also perceived as "toys" and safer for kids/adolescents/teens, since it's harder for them to make meaningful contact with total creeps or stumble over poo poo-eating pornography or something on a 360 than on their computer. Tech-savvy single adults like 90% of the people posting in Games like to scoff at and laugh about this kind of stuff, but it actually matters to the same real people who were a big part of the Wii's gargantuan commercial success.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:Personally, I'd put my bets on some sort of convergence of the handheld/console marketspace for Nintendo in particular- basically just beef up the 3DS to whatever the 'modern' standard is, let it wirelessly output video to your TV and other players use controllers to join in, and you've essentially combined your handheld and console stuff into a single thing. They tried using DS systems as controllers in a few Wii games, though I didn't experience them firsthand and can't say how it works. It could work (especially since the Vita shows you can get current-gen graphics on a handheld) but the streaming tech would need some work. Remember, the Wii U can only stream to two gamepads at once (and I don't even know of any games that currently take advantage of this) Surlaw posted:Edit: "Why would anyone buy consoles when there's the PC??" has been dumb since 1990 and it's still dumb today even with Steam sorry. I think it's less dumb now that the tech in consoles is so close to recent PC tech, but one won't eliminate the other without a huge shakeup. Hell, there's no reason that both can't exist side-by-side- there's plenty of worthwhile 1st-party games that will never move from console to PC, and there's huge PC games like Starcraft and LoL that would never work on consoles. And I know people who play both, say, Halo and LoL and are A-OK with everything.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
The crux of most "PC gaming is really cheap" arguments I've seen is that $600 (the cheapest I've ever seen any PC gamer be able to quote a theoretical computer that won't need a signifigant upgrade for 5 years) is "about the same" as $300. And this is not the place for a Console PC fanboy war, so how about we stop this poo poo right now?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Anybody who thinks the new Sony and MS boxes are gonna be $300 on launch day for any version you'd actually want to own that doesn't have a weird subscription model or riders or w/e is in dreamland. Economy, shmeconomy, they're gonna be $500 for at least six months.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Anybody who thinks the new Sony and MS boxes are gonna be $300 on launch day for any version you'd actually want to own that doesn't have a weird subscription model or riders or w/e is in dreamland. Economy, shmeconomy, they're gonna be $500 for at least six months. If you are so confident on that price point do a Toxx
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:Nintendo doesn't need to be on top to stay profitable. They still need to be profitable though, they aren't even doing that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:As the Gamecube showed, at the worst of times Nintendo can just count on catering to people who like Nintendo things, pushing the Mario brand heavily to draw in new purchases(as well as, sometimes, Zelda), and make enough of a profit to turn things around later on. The Gamecube didn't cost $350+shipping and/or tax ($450 in € land). That's a lot for some hardware just to play one or two Nintendo titles a year.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Zomodok posted:If you are so confident on that price point do a Toxx In what world do you live in where they sell new generation consoles for $300?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:I think people are expecting them to be on top every single generation, and whenever they're not they get poo poo all over and suddenly it's IS NINTENDO LEAVING THE GAME INDUSTRY? IS THIS THEIR FINAL CONSOLE?, which is nice for a headline but has never really held any substance. Even back when people were saying it about the N64. People expect games to play and more than 50,000 sold a month. Nintendo isn't even operating profitably anymore, which used to be something people cited as proof that they were doing well in spite of being last. Nintendo's console situation this time around is uniquely dire.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
mcvey posted:In what world do you live in where they sell new generation consoles for $300? They won't be $300 (barring subsidized deals), but having $400 SKUs is pretty reasonable considering the switch to mainly off-the-shelf PC parts.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
The price point is going to be pretty crucial. I don't think that a new console can afford to go over $400 with the market over saturated of tablets/other devices that are starting to supplant traditional console gaming around a similar price. Not to mention they're going to be using off the shelf PC parts most likely offered at a subsidized price to get the install rate up.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
If the deluxe Wii U is $350 on mostly current-gen hardware, what does that say about the potential cost of making an actual next-gen console? I know that the gamepad is a little costly to manufacture but even at $350 Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss on the hardware alone. We still need to see what the Durango looks like but I feel like one of three things has to happen: -Sony and Microsoft sell their new consoles at a higher price than the deluxe Wii U. Let's say $400 since it's a nice round number, maybe more depending on what's in them. -Sony and Microsoft sell the rumored subsized models of their consoles: lower price on the hardware but locked into paying a year or two of some service. -We need to lower our expectations on what "next-gen graphics" will look like on consoles. VV Yeah, I knew it was at least $100 or something for the pad. C-Euro fucked around with this message at 05:27 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:If the deluxe Wii U is $350 on mostly current-gen hardware, what does that say about the potential cost of making an actual next-gen console? I know that the gamepad is a little costly to manufacture but even at $350 Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss on the hardware alone. We still need to see what the Durango looks like but I feel like one of three things has to happen: The gamepad is really pricy. I dunno how much of a markup there is, but if you have to get one replaced it costs like $150, and that's not counting the extra stuff they had to put into the console itself to interact with it. I still think the new consoles will definitely be more than the deluxe Wii U though. But considering the deluxe vastly outsells the basic, it shows that people aren't afraid to pay a little more if they think the value proposition is worth it. Crowbear fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Harlock posted:The price point is going to be pretty crucial. I don't think that a new console can afford to go over $400 with the market over saturated of tablets/other devices that are starting to supplant traditional console gaming around a similar price. Sony itself said that it doesn't want to lose all that much money on each PS4 especially given how much they lost on each PS3 so it's probably going to be closer to that 600 dollar figure than you may think.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And this is not the place for a Console PC fanboy war, so how about we stop this poo poo right now? Yes, please. C-Euro posted:If the deluxe Wii U is $350 on mostly current-gen hardware, what does that say about the potential cost of making an actual next-gen console? I know that the gamepad is a little costly to manufacture but even at $350 Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss on the hardware alone. Nintendo isn't selling Wii U at a loss, though, they're specifically trying to make money on the system itself. That's not factoring in unsanctioned price cuts by UK retailers, but Nintendo isn't playing the same game as Sony and MS on console pricing. Anyway, to get back to Quest for Glory's complaints about Nintendo's lack of marketing and 'getting it in people's faces' - take a look at Microsoft as an example. Xbox 360 and Kinect logos are plastered over every NFL game, even two years after Kinect's launch, there are plenty of ads for games on TV that always feature an 'Xbox 360' branded outro, not to mention print and website ads - they basically get the thing in your face no matter what outlets you choose for entertainment or information (hell, they even plaster the damned 360's dashboard with ads). Say what you will about Microsoft, but brand awareness is not one of their problems - even if you have absolutely no desire or interest for the things, I'd wager you're aware of what Surface and Windows 8 are. The point is, Nintendo could be doing something, anything along those lines right now, but they aren't. Why?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:Nintendo isn't selling Wii U at a loss, though, they're specifically trying to make money on the system itself. That's not factoring in unsanctioned price cuts by UK retailers, but Nintendo isn't playing the same game as Sony and MS on console pricing. They are, actually, and have admitted it a couple times now. Reggie initially said it only took one game purchase for them to be in the green, but I think that was busted a while back on that and the loss is more than that in reality.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:Nintendo isn't selling Wii U at a loss, though, they're specifically trying to make money on the system itself. That's not factoring in unsanctioned price cuts by UK retailers, but Nintendo isn't playing the same game as Sony and MS on console pricing. Ummm, they've said multiple times that they're selling at a loss, and that the loss isn't covered by 1 game sale like Reggie said that one time.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:But I think he showed, rather unintentionally, why consoles still have a place. They still have a place for me because Japan hates developing games for PC and a lot of my favorite companies never make games for PC, ever.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
mikemil828 posted:Sony itself said that it doesn't want to lose all that much money on each PS4 especially given how much they lost on each PS3 so it's probably going to be closer to that 600 dollar figure than you may think. But didn't they also acknowledge that "Five hundred and ninety nine US dollars" was a misstep as well? That turned off a lot of people from the start. Seems they're backed into a corner with the price.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:What I don't get is the recent decision to take all the ad revenue from any YouTube videos showing their games. That is a guaranteed way to make sure no one with any actual audience will bother playing your games, because they can't make any money from it. It's hardly as big as deciding not to do a big E3 show, but regardless it's still shooting themselves in the foot marketing-wise for the sake of a minuscule return from that ad revenue which won't exist anymore. I don't know, I think most of it comes from the notion of all the Let's Plays that are the entirety of the game, front to back, that people are watching and giving the LP'er ad revenue instead of Nintendo for actually playing the game. That's kinda messed up, and Nintendo should at least get a cut of that. And frankly, who the hell has bought a Nintendo game because of a Youtuber? Unlike Indie developers and obscure Eastern European studios, Nintendo has a (worthless) marketing department and the vast majority of games people have already made up in their minds whether they're going to buy or not, before the Youtube brigade gets their hands on them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Chic Trombone posted:They are, actually, and have admitted it a couple times now. Reggie initially said it only took one game purchase for them to be in the green, but I think that was busted a while back on that and the loss is more than that in reality. Really? I could've sworn I'd read that they still weren't taking a loss on the Wii U. Not to say I think you're incorrect, but do you have a source link? I tried (briefly) to find one before posting but my Googling just turned up a bunch of retailer sites.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:Really? I could've sworn I'd read that they still weren't taking a loss on the Wii U. Not to say I think you're incorrect, but do you have a source link? I tried (briefly) to find one before posting but my Googling just turned up a bunch of retailer sites. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22013695/nintendo-fils-aime-talks-wii-u-eve-launch quote:SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (publ. 11/25/2012, pg. A2)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Crowbear posted:http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22013695/nintendo-fils-aime-talks-wii-u-eve-launch Thanks. That really makes me wonder where the costs are going, considering the CPU and GPU aren't dramatically superior than the 360/PS3, it only has 2 GB of DDR3 RAM, (up to) 32 GB of flash storage, doesn't include a blu-ray drive or have to license blu-ray decoding software, and (having held one in my hand a few times), the Gamepad honestly feels a little cheap. Granted, that doesn't factor in R&D, but I would think with volume purchasing deals Nintendo could get the base materials together for less than $350.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:I don't know, I think most of it comes from the notion of all the Let's Plays that are the entirety of the game, front to back, that people are watching and giving the LP'er ad revenue instead of Nintendo for actually playing the game. That's kinda messed up, and Nintendo should at least get a cut of that. And frankly, who the hell has bought a Nintendo game because of a Youtuber? Unlike Indie developers and obscure Eastern European studios, Nintendo has a (worthless) marketing department and the vast majority of games people have already made up in their minds whether they're going to buy or not, before the Youtube brigade gets their hands on them. People in the thread have mentioned that they've made purchases based on what YouTube LPers have played. One of the channels I follow played Nintendo Land a few months ago, and it increased my interest in the console far more than any preview media I've seen for the thing. The point is, the amount of money Nintendo's getting from that is incredibly minuscule (even more so now considering how much this will discourage anyone with any real subscriber base from bothering to show Nintendo games) and denying themselves an avenue for advertising for virtually no reason. It's a prime example of Nintendo's endemic issue with not knowing how to advertise this thing.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:Really? I could've sworn I'd read that they still weren't taking a loss on the Wii U. Not to say I think you're incorrect, but do you have a source link? I tried (briefly) to find one before posting but my Googling just turned up a bunch of retailer sites. Went looking and I can't find anything really recent, but here's a statement from a bit before the launch from one of their financial briefings. Here's the relevant bit: Nintendo's briefing posted:
edit: whoops, beaten!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
TASTE THE PAIN!! posted:But didn't they also acknowledge that "Five hundred and ninety nine US dollars" was a misstep as well? That turned off a lot of people from the start. Seems they're backed into a corner with the price. But at the same time given that the Wii-U's 350 running last-gen hardware, I think 450 is as optimistic as it gets for the everything-in-the-box, no "gently caress you" 10gb hard drive model. I'm expecting $499 and then "options", probably a cruddy stripped down 449 or 399 version and some kind of installment-plan stuff where you save money if you sign a two-year Live contract or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Space Racist posted:Thanks. That really makes me wonder where the costs are going, considering the CPU and GPU aren't dramatically superior than the 360/PS3, it only has 2 GB of DDR3 RAM, doesn't include a blu-ray drive or have to license blu-ray decoding software, and (having held one in my hand a few times), the Gamepad honestly feels a little cheap. Granted, that doesn't factor in R&D, but I would think with volume purchasing deals Nintendo could get the base materials together for less than $350. The gamepad may feel cheap, but it really isn't. A sizable LCD touchscreen, gyroscopes, accelerometers, a microphone, a camera, an NFC reader, a chip to decode the incoming video, an extra 802.11n wifi unit in the console, all that stuff adds up. miscellaneous14 posted:People in the thread have mentioned that they've made purchases based on what YouTube LPers have played. One of the channels I follow played Nintendo Land a few months ago, and it increased my interest in the console far more than any preview media I've seen for the thing. When Jeff Green, a PR guy and the most awesome person in the industry calls you a moron you've probably done something wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:People in the thread have mentioned that they've made purchases based on what YouTube LPers have played. One of the channels I follow played Nintendo Land a few months ago, and it increased my interest in the console far more than any preview media I've seen for the thing. If people are really going to refuse to cover Nintendo games because they won't get ad revenue then that cuts out, gosh, how many people? Youtube LP'ers playing through the entirety of a game and Nintendo getting no cut from it. Youtube Personalities who care more about profit than the games themselves. And gosh, who else? Slowbeef and some of the other, more original Let's Players have talked about this and are pretty much making fun of anyone who's mad about it, so it really seems to be a manufactured outrage.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:I don't know, I think most of it comes from the notion of all the Let's Plays that are the entirety of the game, front to back, that people are watching and giving the LP'er ad revenue instead of Nintendo for actually playing the game. That's kinda messed up, and Nintendo should at least get a cut of that. The ad revenue generated by these videos is like a couple bucks at most, and Nintendo isn't by the law protecting their copyright here, so there's something else going on. I slept on it and I don't think they intended to be copyright trolls. In the past they've said that they weren't against people monetizing their videos of Nintendo content, but they got so many email requests that they had to just start categorically declining all requests by default. I think the people who were saying that Nintendo might be bringing game streaming to Wii U could be right, and they are just putting their game content into the Content ID scraper because they intend on letting people record gameplay directly to Youtube, like the PS4 is doing. I don't know if the Wii U is actually capable of it; they did dedicate half a gig of RAM to the OS so I guess it's possible.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:But at the same time given that the Wii-U's 350 running last-gen hardware, I think 450 is as optimistic as it gets for the everything-in-the-box, no "gently caress you" 10gb hard drive model. Plus, as others have pointed out, the WiiU pad. Also, if you're including a subscription to Ps+ as one of the chicanery options, I'm pretty sure most gamers who've experienced it would be pretty happy to take that deal.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:50
|
|