I agree in theory with the idea that continuing the same franchise with many different variations ad nauseum can be successful, but what I'm saying is that not moving on to other things--or at least working on new stuff concurrently--is incredibly risky. And relying on big names to balance out the risk loses its effectiveness over time--not to mention that people eventually just become jaded to them.
however, note, this isn't a nintendo critique. this is a critique on all three platform makers, most every major game studio. ...and also movies and tv. franchises are easier to cash in with, because they have built in audiences. personally, i think nintendo does a good job with innovating and evolving the franchise iterations in most (certainly not all) examples. conveniently enough, you feel the same with sony. i can't wait to see what sony does with this new allstars battle royale concept!!
The fact is that the net gamers all derided the Wii as a fad. It wasn't. The only reason sales are down now is because the market has hit it's saturation point.
Then why are the other consoles' sales still going without a proportionate amount of loss in relation to the Wii? {SNIP} as the article noted, the sales of the PS3 and the 360 haven't followed that trend.
the avengers lost $100 million dollars between their first and second weekend. by proportion guidelines, that's the most unsuccessful theatrical bombing of all time. sure, it was moving from a record breaking first weekend to a record breaking second weekend, but...
i'm not trying to dismiss the success of the ps3 and 360, but the stance of the article is seemingly percentage based. the wii sold roughly 85% of ps3's last year (360 actually bested the pair) but some how sony's 14 million units sold is an achievement and nintendo's 12 is a shortcoming. if that is an accurate depiction, then shouldn't the other companies be disappointed that their gains are the same as another's disappointments?
just for record's sake, in 2012, the wii has sold about half as many units as the ps3, and maybe 65% of the 360 (which, for another record, has had a disasterous april/may). so, sure, doubling your opponent is great. but, also keep in mind, the wii announced its successor about 14 months ago, to be released 6 months from now. even with a price drop (which there hasn't been) and a rush of first party games (which there hasn't been) it should still be somewhat impressive the wii is holding its own.
I would argue that, while the PS2 probably didn't sell as fast or as voluminously as the Wii in its younger years, the Wii probably won't be selling as much or as long as the PS2 has and is (insanely enough).
but let's say future pariah is right, and the wii's lifespan, years 7-12, are not as solid as the ps2's. ...what would your point be? and would you maintain that same point were years 7-12 of the wii still superior to that of the ps3's?
I realize that the article has lauded the Wii, but that doesn't mean it contradicts my scrutiny of it.
the article states the wii was wonderful, and nintendo's actual mistake is the wii-u. you claim the wii was nintendo's mistake, and the wii-u is
more mistake. my claim is that the wii was a phenom. you were incorrect years ago, and the article is trying to rewrite history to avoid sharing your scarlet letter.
What I'm saying is that the sale and success of the Wii and the ideas it represents has boxed Nintendo into a corner.
new platforms mean new directions. every iteration of a nintendo console has meant something drastic. from NES to arcade style SNES, to sticking with carts and pissing off sony with N64, to shrinking inward with gamecube, to blue ocean method with the wii. wii-u could follow any of these paths, or something different. it appears to have blue-ocean thinking like wii, but forethought of more traditional gaming to perhaps correct some of the shortcomings of the past era. maybe it'll work, maybe it wont. either way, there's no corner to paint into when you can reinvent yourself every 5 years.
I feel Nintendo's hamstrung their ability to make games conventionally (assuming they ever feel the need or desire to do so). i.e. By fixating on a bold and innovative gaming interface as the selling point--as opposed to the actual games--they doom themselves to a compulsion to develop future systems that aren't intuitive as gaming consoles.
the wii was the largest diversion from "traditional" gaming in a home console since, perhaps, the dawn of gaming. and nintendo did just fine by it. if the wii's disgusting success wasn't a clear enough indicator for you, then maybe you'll note sony and microsoft's attempts at motion gaming during the middle of their console's lifespans, and continuing through to this year's e3. similarly, note all of the developers and third parties outside of this big 3 that have dipped their toes in the diverging waters, across all three platforms. that's not a trend that has slowed. you could easily make the argument that the wii changed the industry - perhaps minorly, perhaps completely.
And aside from implementing motion controls, there is nothing about the Wii-U that would suggest it's an evolution from the Wii's nun chuck. Imagine for a moment that you're only familiar with the Wii-U and were completely ignorant of the Wii: do you really think you would picture the nun chuck as the Wii-U's predecessor?
at the risk of going into promotional mode for a second... i just want to highlight some of the wii-u features. if, for any reason, to avoid your claims of a shell controller for another few years.
the wii featured a "remote" and a nunchuck. the remote was for motion control actions and featured a few buttons; the nunchuck tied in a joystiq and two-hand "normalcy".
the wii-u gamepad is entirely different. it is a two-handed controller, for starters. it features motion control. it features a built in screen that can be used, like with the DS, as a menu or map screen. additionally, you can also swap the game from the big screen tv to the in-controller screen; not as a true portable device (there's a range) but allowing you to relocate, or watch something else, or even just play reclined. the screen also has touch capability, for use in-game, or with apps as a stand-alone device / ipad. there's a built-in microphone. a built-in camera. a built in scanner that will allow you to place physical objects on the gamepad, or specific card codes, and have them scanned into the game or AR purposes. perhaps most important to a "traditional gamer", the gamepad also features a more standard layout - two hands, two joysticks and a standard button scheme (shoulders, triggers, cross and plus).
i'm sure you still hate it, but... i just want to point out that there are VAST differences between the two.
like when the DS came out, which itself introduced dual screens, touch screens, a microphone, a camera and several other notions... these aspects are considered options to developers. there's no mandate that anyone has to utilize all - or any - of these features. while you see a gimmick, some developers might see a bonus.
