I've had it with your shit, Nintendo.

[L___E___T]

Free as in indie, shareware, or free to play.  So I guess that's free beer, not sure how free speech applies to games but there we go.

[famifan]

Free as in indie, shareware, or free to play.  So I guess that's free beer, not sure how free speech applies to games but there we go.

Haven't heard about free software? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[L___E___T]

No I hadn't.  Not even relevant, I said free games not free software.

[famifan]

free software can be a game. if so it's free game and totally relevant

[L___E___T]

Everything in your link was all about computing software, no games even listed.  Not to worry, just seemed like a pointless and derailing post.

[P]

Famifan didn't have any bad intentions. When you talk about free computer games, the whole free software/open source community comes to mind. And of course as Famifan said, a game is also software and can be used in this sense. For example you could take the basic engine from a game which source is open, and use it in your own projects.

[Epic_Lotus]

I was thinking about this today.  What strikes me as where Nintendo went wrong* was the push to bring "core" gamers back into the Nintendo fold.  The more I think about it, the more I think they never had them to begin with.  Back in the early days of the NES, consoles were still mostly considered toys for children.  I mean, that was the whole point of R.O.B., to distance the NES from the "video game industry" that was crashing in the early 1980's.  So, mostly, it was kids that played it the US.  I don't know how it was in Japan, but it strikes me the Family Computer wasn't meant just for adults or kids.  

Once the 90's rolled in and the PC market started to take off, I think you started seeing a more "hardcore" community of gamers develop because computers were so much more expensive.  Not many people had PC's at home back in those days, so the PC gaming crowd was limited to people that hung out in the computer lab after school, and those with rich parents/jobs who were very dedicated to their gaming.  The SNES/Genesis era was still just "gaming", in my book.  I think it was the advent of the Playstation where there was suddenly a crowd of people who took gaming more seriously, as it was the first console to really cater to an older (teen) audience.  

Even then, I wouldn't say the "hardcore" audience really showed up until the Xbox/PS2 era.  Then you started seeing serious attention being paid to perennial releases of sports games and shooters.  That said, I think the audience pulled into this kind of gaming wasn't necessarily the same group of people that were hardcore in the PC vs. console days.  I'd say that really, it was the advent of Xbox Live that created the "hardcore" gamer, where online competition became an outlet for wanna-be jocks and bro's.  During this era, the best Nintendo could put out in terms of competitive gaming was Super Smash Bros. Melee and an entry in the Soul Caliber series with a Link exclusive.  Sure, some of the same games came out on Gamecube, but the people that were actually serious about the competitive titles were on the Xbox.  I'd venture that that hardcore group of competitive gamers drew in a lot of people that would have been much more casual in the previous generations.  Combine those factors with the explosion of the internet in the early 2000's, and you have a whole subset of gamers that is rapidly expanding in both numbers and popularity.  

Then we come to the current generation and MS and Sony are both vying for that same group of gamers.  Meanwhile, Nintendo continues to ignore that segment of the gaming population and releases the Wii.  While a huge success, it still fails to truly rise above the level of a family toy.  It sold extremely well, but even Nintendo itself has continued to mostly ignore the hardcore crowd with its 1st party software.  The only thing that comes remotely close is Metroid, but even that pales in comparison to the violence and "adultness" present in contemporary titles on the other two systems.  Combine that with completely ignoring the "scripted" action games that have become so popular (like Drake's Fortune, Batman, etc.), and there's just not much that Nintendo is doing to even appeal to their rivals' audiences.

Now, Nintendo says they want to attract "core" gamers, but by not leading the way with a 1st party "core" game of their own, they've essentially relied on a bunch of 3rd party developers who actually have no incentive to bring anything to Nintendo's platform.  These developers know their audience is the type that laughs at Nintendo, and really, always has.  These people never owned Gamecubes or Wii's to begin with, and I doubt many of them were old enough to seriously game when the N64 was out.  The Wii U largely ignores the graphical capabilities this audience cares about, and it has also largely ignored the niche genre fans that could have thrived on this new console (think RPG-fans).  Nintendo says this year that they're planning to lead with more 1st party titles, but these franchises won't bring in new fans.

If Nintendo wants to stand out from Sony and MS, they need to appeal to everyone who isn't part of the competitive gamer crowd because they'll never get that crowd to give up their Live account anyways.  They need to be saying to everyone who loves a niche genre that Nintendo is the place to be.  RPG's, party games, music games, puzzle games, simulations, classic gamers, etc.  These are the crowds Nintendo needs to focus on to drive up sales.  I still think the Wii U has a lot of potential to be a great system, but Nintendo does seem to be forgetting who their audience has always been: the "gamer".  People that play games more for fun than for sport; the kind of person that's a bit horrified at the idea of a 13 year-old telling someone over chat that they just raped their face; even the gamer that just plays video games a couple times a month, who maybe uses the Netflix app more than their games.

Nintendo can get back on top, they just need to stop focusing on a crowd they'll never get.





*I say wrong for the sake of the thread.  I don't think Nintendo will actually fail because of the Wii U.

[satoshi_matrix]

The GameCube was the console I feel I "graduating" from Nintendo with. I bought a Wii on launch day, but with a few notable exceptions, I just don't have much interest in Nintendo these days. They seem to have abandoned all the franchises I'd actually care about - Metroid, any F-Zero in general, StarFox, 2D Zelda. I don't care much for the constant slew of 3D Zeldas, and while Super Mario Galaxy was spectacular and interesting, I honestly don't feel I actually NEED another new Mario game.

[crade]

I'd say PS1 was definate the point that Nintendo lost and never recovered.

edit: In my opinion, the wii was a poor console even though it sold well.  Good games were few and far between and more expensive than the competition.  Third party titles were pretty hard to come by, the motion controls ended up being used mostly as just a gimmick, which was really dissapointing after how well wii sports showed them off initially.  I believe all this also contributed to the poor sales of the sequel.  My dissapointment with the wii is certainly the main reason I did not get one.

I don't really think it would be a problem that they include adult gamers in their target audience as long as they don't forget younger gamers, and you know if they actually released anything for anyone on the wii-u.