Comments (26)
sorted by:
Warskullx 13 points ago +13 / -0

Its is less touchscreens and more of about their blue ocean strategy. They are the most famous example of a company doing this.

With the Gamecube it was way more powerful than the Playstation 2 and comparable to the Xbox. It sold relatively poorly. Nintendo recognized being the most powerful console wasn't going to sell their consoles anymore. The kind of gamers who bought games for graphics paradoxically moved to the Playstation and would not come back for better graphics.

So Nintendo shifted to their current strategy. Instead of competing with Sony and Microsoft they would make their own market... with touchscreens and waggle. They focus on creating unique products using hardware innovation with no competition. This was Iwata's brainchild and he clearly stated this would either shoot Nintendo into the stratosphere or end them.

It undeniably works. If you look at the consoles from a sales perspective post Gamecube, Nintendo is at 4 out of 5. The Wii, DS, 3DS, and Switch are all wildly successful. The Wii U failed. These aren't minor successes either, they sold massive amounts of consoles making money on each console. Nintendo has so much money in the bank it is ridiculous.

So it isn't specifically touch screens, but unique hardware that lacks a competitor. With the DS it was a touchscreen, with the 3DS it was 3D without glasses. With the Wii it was early motion controls. With the Wii U it was brining touch controls to the home console. With the Switch it is combining mobile and home consoles into a single hybrid console.

CisSiberianOrchestra 12 points ago +12 / -0

You're forgetting one big reason why the Playstation 2 outsold the Gamecube: at the time, the Playstation 2 was the cheapest DVD player on the market. Many people bought the PS2 just so they could use it to watch DVD movies. The Gamecube, on the other hand, used its own proprietary optical disc and did not support DVDs.

eagleheart585 [S] 12 points ago +12 / -0

This is also true for the first PS3 and blue-ray.

CisSiberianOrchestra 5 points ago +5 / -0

I remember the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. I have a buddy who actually bought the HD-DVD drive for the XBox 360. He only ever ended up owning like 4 or 5 movies that used that format.

TechParadox 6 points ago +6 / -0

In your buddy's defense, there were only like 4 or 5 movies ever produced on HD-DVD that were worth owning.

That being said, I think if HD-DVD hadn't shunned the porn industry, it might have come out on top as the primary format. If you look at the history of viable-vs-failed formats on consumer video playback, every one that has succeeded didn't get in the way of the porn industry producing content.

CisSiberianOrchestra 4 points ago +4 / -0

I've heard that theory before. Back in the early 1980s, there was a format war between Betamax and VHS. Although Betamax offered superior video and audio quality, the porn industry chose to go with VHS. Betamax fizzled out while VHS became the main home video format until DVD took off.

There was also Laserdisc, but that was mainly a toy for rich people. Although from what I've heard, Laserdisc copies of the original Star Wars trilogy are quite valuable these days because they were made before the Special Edition edits.

CoolAsACucumber 6 points ago +6 / -0

The problem with Betamax (owned by Sony) is that Sony wouldn't license out the Betamax software so that they could have a firm control of the market (AKA they got too greedy).

The owners of VHS licensed out and every company used VHS instead.

TechParadox 3 points ago +3 / -0

As was mentioned below, Betamax was a case of Sony being Sony - they wanted to keep a stranglehold over their end of the market, so they wouldn't license it out. There's definitely a precedent for them coming up with proprietary formats and being stupid about it (Memory Stick says what?). If they'd licensed out the tech to the porn industry, Beta might have been the predominant format.

And you're right - Laserdisc was pretty much a toy for people with more money than sense. My parents had a friend that was a bachelor with money to burn, and I can remember thinking it was so cool that he had movies on these shiny platters. The O.G. Star Wars trilogy on Laserdisc is worth quite a chunk of change to collectors for the reason you noted - it's an unadulterated copy of the films on a format that provides the best method for getting a clean duplicate of the films as they were originally presented. Granted, these days you can just go download the De-Specialized trilogy to get the same stuff, even further cleaned up, but there's something to be said for having a clean copy of the film and the bragging rights to go with it.

CisSiberianOrchestra 3 points ago +3 / -0

Star Wars Trilogy: The Definitive Collection on laserdisc was pretty much a must-own for serious Star Wars fans. Not only did it include the pre-Special Edition cuts of the movie in the highest-quality video and audio available at the time, it also contained a large booklet of production notes and George Lucas: The Creative Impulse, a book about the early years of Lucasfilm. People have been known to pay $200 or more for the set on eBay.

There are a few laserdiscs that are quite valuable. The laserdisc of Scream is sought by collectors because it's the only place you can see the original, uncut version of the film (it was never released on DVD). The laserdisc of The Matrix was released right before DVD made laserdisc obsolete, so copies of it are hard to find and sell for a lot of money. There was also a laserdisc of Disney's Song of the South that was released only in Japan and nowhere else. It's also sought by collectors because of how rare it is.

day221 1 point ago +1 / -0

Betamax was better quality but VHS allowed for a much longer tape initially.

J_Darnley 3 points ago +3 / -0

PS2 was our first DVD player and it wasn't even connected to the main TV just a tiny one in a bedroom.

AlfredicEnglishRules 2 points ago +2 / -0

There has been a lot of weirdness with the Playstation console sales. The top selling game is no where near the console sales amount. It becomes obvious something is up when you see games that the majority likely owned for the console being an eighth of the console sales.

We make all these statements about sales, but the numbers say something else was happening. I'm not saying the PS2 didn't outsell the GameCube, I'm saying it wasn't as much of a bloodbath as is often said.

WildStar 1 point ago +1 / -0

Another problem Nintendo was dealing with at the time was their utter lack of third party support. They alienated a lot of third party publishers with ridiculous demands, driving them to Sony and Microsoft.

eagleheart585 [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

What a well summarized response, you had me interested in blue ocean strategy. Nintendo has always been the most experimental and I love them for that. And I honestly think a big reason why the Wii-U failed was the name. If it had it's own name it would've seemed more like a new console but instead it seemed like a variation of the wii. And it was it's own, new, innovative console so what didn't they give it it's own name.

Isolated_Patriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

And I honestly think a big reason why the Wii-U failed was the name.

Yes. For years I continued to meet people who legitimately thought it was a dorky attachment for the Wii, and that Nintendo didn't have a current generation console.

WildStar 4 points ago +4 / -0

That was exactly what I had thought about it then. I thought is was just an expansion for the wii, so i didn't give it much other thought.

The lesson here would be: if you're releasing a new generation console, make sure people know that it's a new console.

CaptainRon77 2 points ago +2 / -0

I had a wii at launch and just last year learned they Wii-U was a standalone device. I thought it was one of their gimmick peripherals for exercise. Never had interest.

The marketing, which was already very low, was also very off.

Warskullx 2 points ago +2 / -0

The name and marketing certainly didn't help, it was atrocious. However, part of it was also the gaming press fanning the flames of anti-Nintendo sentiment. They were actively rooting for the 3DS and Wii U to fail. Some gamers were still sore about Nintendo courting a more casual audience with the Wii and game journos took every opportunity to twist the knife. It is one of the big reasons Nintendo decided to just cut them out of the loop and do Nintendo directs.

The Wii U clearly had amazing games because you see a lot of Wii U games getting ported to the Switch and selling like nuts. Some are even hailed as master pieces, like DKC: Tropical Freeze.

AlfredicEnglishRules 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it was really weird during the PS2 era. There were ports to the GameCube that were worse than the PS2, and the devs said it had something to do with the GC not being as powerful.

Eventually it turned out Sony had been paying the companies to have the better port, and even screw up ports for other companies.

The Blue Ocean strategy not only differentiated the market for Nintendo, it compensated for the crap ports that would happen anyway.

A really smart move.

AntonZap 4 points ago +4 / -0

Because when you have a product that sold more than 154 million units you want to try and keep as many things that made it happen as you can.

RicFlair 2 points ago +2 / -0

It works really well for some games like mario maker but normally it just feels shoehorned in

Isolated_Patriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

As for touch screens, I almost agree with you in general, but I actually love that feature on my Vita.

Not for touch controls, no the hardware buttons are the reason I have a portable console. But so many games incorporate little features into the touch screen like tapping the mini-map to open the full map, or tapping on a character portrait to switch the active character. Features I actually miss when streaming a game from my PC over Moonlight.

I would appreciate it too if more games with maps allowed pinch to zoom.

It's as 'gimmicky' as having more buttons, imo. Depends on what is actually done with the feature. Now the back touch panel, that was a useless waste of money that kept hardware costs up, and it would have been 10x better to just have L2 and R2 buttons and/or some kind of grip buttons (a feature I also love, but is apparently held hostage by patent trolls).

christianknight 1 point ago +2 / -1

Its for touch screen porn of course