3 ms·
> it focused on that over flashy graphics and shock-and-gore > They seem to me to be like the Pixar or Apple of games, or better. I think that what both Apple
by flgr 10y ago
> it focused on that over flashy graphics and shock-and-gore
> They seem to me to be like the Pixar or Apple of games, or better.
I think that what both Apple and Nintendo have in common is that they don't just try to put hardware components into a box and sell them to you for cheap (e.g. Dell).
They have a chance of higher profit margins by taking themselves out of that race via trying to find creative ways to add value instead of optimizing raw performance / sale price.
- aaron-lebo 10y agoNo, they just overcharge you for old or gimmicky hardware instead. :p They aren't afraid to take chances but not all of their chances are so great. The Wii U was a bit of a disaster.
- flgr 10y agoExactly this! If you think Apple and their profit margins there's a big parallel. And both Apple as well as Nintendo have gone for gimmicks that weren't obvious big hits (the Wii U, 3D touch). (On the subject of the Wii U, in a lot of ways it seems like the Switch might be the second iteration for being hip and also making a tablet, where the Wii U was the first one.) Not sure if it's still true that all other console makers are subsidizing theirs.
- hackuser 10y ago> They aren't afraid to take chances but not all of their chances are so great. Isn't that the nature of taking chances? If there weren't failures, it wouldn't be called 'taking risks'.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y agoThe first Wii was pretty amazing IMHO. Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime have the best controls of any FPS I've ever played on console. It was just so natural, I could get head shots in RE4 by just pointing my arm at the TV and pulling the trigger. Then they released the Wii U ...
- mcphage 10y ago> The Wii U was a bit of a disaster. Its library was smaller than I would have liked, but it definitely had a number of really great games.