asia_catdog_blue
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 994
https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/macroeconomic-trends-of-generation-9/
Yeah, it's a Sean Malstrom Topic, I don't care!
I just want some people to think about what happening in Generation 9 of Gaming.
Nintendo does design their game consoles based on macro-economic trends. In the past, the game console was just better ‘hardware’ that did better graphics and all. After the Gamecube, Nintendo realized it needed to change.
With the Wii and DS, Nintendo saw the macro-economic writing on the wall especially for Japan. Japan had fallen economically from the mid 1990s. The demographics of Japan is an aging population. There are less and less babies. The pipeline of children coming in was shrinking which meant Nintendo’s core market was shrinking. It was THIS that caused Nintendo to look to sell to other markets and to non-gamers. Nintendo wanted to sell to older people because Japan is filling up with older people.
Nintendo’s pattern is that first party games create an install base for the console which third party companies then come in and exploit. For those of you talking about third party game companies and Nintendo consoles, did you know that there has never been heavy third party support for a new Nintendo console? The only one I can think maybe would be the SNES and most of those games were sequels to NES known franchises (e.g. Castlevania 4, Gradius 3, Super Ghosts and Goblins, Contra 3).
It’s a mistake to compare third party output for Nintendo consoles to Microsoft and Sony because both Microsoft and Sony are closer to PCs than consoles. Both Microsoft and Sony, who are not game companies, literally design their system around whatever the third parties want and take the massive financial risk to do so. Nintendo is not willing to risk billions of dollars for third party companies. Likewise, third party companies will not risk putting so much money into an unproven system.
This is why we see the cycle of a few third party games coming out which are very tepid efforts. The third party companies know that they need their staff to know the machine, in case it takes off, and they want to keep good relations with Nintendo. And when the console takes off, then the third party companies double down and make more games for the Nintendo hardware. For what we call ‘very successful’ Nintendo consoles such as the NES, look at the launch line up. It is nearly 100% Nintendo games. Third party games didn’t really get going for the NES until 1988 and 1989, two to three years after the system had been out.
This is just a small portion of the the topic talks about.
Do you agree with what it offers?
Yeah, it's a Sean Malstrom Topic, I don't care!
I just want some people to think about what happening in Generation 9 of Gaming.
Nintendo does design their game consoles based on macro-economic trends. In the past, the game console was just better ‘hardware’ that did better graphics and all. After the Gamecube, Nintendo realized it needed to change.
With the Wii and DS, Nintendo saw the macro-economic writing on the wall especially for Japan. Japan had fallen economically from the mid 1990s. The demographics of Japan is an aging population. There are less and less babies. The pipeline of children coming in was shrinking which meant Nintendo’s core market was shrinking. It was THIS that caused Nintendo to look to sell to other markets and to non-gamers. Nintendo wanted to sell to older people because Japan is filling up with older people.
Nintendo’s pattern is that first party games create an install base for the console which third party companies then come in and exploit. For those of you talking about third party game companies and Nintendo consoles, did you know that there has never been heavy third party support for a new Nintendo console? The only one I can think maybe would be the SNES and most of those games were sequels to NES known franchises (e.g. Castlevania 4, Gradius 3, Super Ghosts and Goblins, Contra 3).
It’s a mistake to compare third party output for Nintendo consoles to Microsoft and Sony because both Microsoft and Sony are closer to PCs than consoles. Both Microsoft and Sony, who are not game companies, literally design their system around whatever the third parties want and take the massive financial risk to do so. Nintendo is not willing to risk billions of dollars for third party companies. Likewise, third party companies will not risk putting so much money into an unproven system.
This is why we see the cycle of a few third party games coming out which are very tepid efforts. The third party companies know that they need their staff to know the machine, in case it takes off, and they want to keep good relations with Nintendo. And when the console takes off, then the third party companies double down and make more games for the Nintendo hardware. For what we call ‘very successful’ Nintendo consoles such as the NES, look at the launch line up. It is nearly 100% Nintendo games. Third party games didn’t really get going for the NES until 1988 and 1989, two to three years after the system had been out.
This is just a small portion of the the topic talks about.
Do you agree with what it offers?
Last edited: