Nintendo's Genre Innovation Strategy

drumbandit

drumbandit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Nintendo's Genre Innovation Strategy: Thoughts on the Revolution's new controller

(Don't let the scrollbar length scare you. The comments, which are actually pretty intelligent, take up 4/5 of the page.)



This is easily the greatest commentary on the industry I've ever read. I feel like I better understand not only Nintendo's business strategy, but the rest of the gaming industry's as well. Even the opinions of random forum monkeys around the internet. The funny thing is that it was all kind of obvious, but I never saw it framed so well before.

Just read it! I'm really interested in people's thoughts here.



I'd put myself into what he calls the "Semi-Hardcore" gamer category. Which fits well with my being happy with only Nintendo's consoles and not a multiplatform gamer. I'm much more attracted to the initial experience than the refinement that is usually more prominent as it is copied and transferred to other platforms. It really answers the "nostalgia" question I've had for a long time. It's not nostalgia that makes me think more highly of the original Legend of Zelda than LttP, it's the freshness of the experience. I used to be all about PC games back in the 80's and early 90's, Wolfenstein and Doom, various adventure and RTS games, but now it really doesn't interest me enough to invest the time or money into the new and awesome refinements like Half-Life 2 and Warcraft 3. It also explains my brief flirtation with quitting gaming toward the middle of the Cube's lifecycle, when Nintendo, and the rest of the industry, really wasn't innovating much and things were becoming dull for me. And why I absolutely adore the DS and what I've heard of the Revolution. :)
 
Kind of a boring read and it didn't really state anything that I didn't already know. I did find it funny that the author mentioned the "C-stick" as an innovation that Nintendo invented though. I'm not sure why the poster felt the need to come up with that "verb" terminology. Was that a message board post or a thesis?
 
[quote name='drumbandit']Yes, let's nitpick the terminology instead of discuss the content. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Well, the content is nothing that hasn't been discussed before, but with new terminology.

We all know that Nintendo innovates and the other companies pick up on things that work well and then fine tune them. We know Nintendo is able to make money by being different than the other companies. We know that people will be skeptical of new technology when they are familiar and happy with current technology.
 
What hasn't been discussed before?


I just found it really interesting in relation to the new Rev controller, and how you can clearly see the division among posters who like the idea and those who would rather stick with what they know and attempt to continue to refine it. I thought it was cool how he tied gamers' habits with exploring and reinvesting in certain genres with their inclinations with control innovation.

And yeah, that C-stick comment was pretty stupid.
 
haven't read the article, but I have been totally supportive of nintendo ever since they started their new formula with the DS. Gaming has become more repetative nowadays and needs not only a facelift, but some new techniques of how games are interacted with. The Rev controller still blows my mind of how interestingly useful and unique it is. Sony and M$ need to take note before they become companies that make repetitive rehashes and sequals.
 
[quote name='evanft']If there's one company that makes their money on rehashes and sequels, it's Nintendo.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much their bread and butter. I wonder how many PS2 and Xbox owners bought GameCubes this generation just so they could play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games.
 
[quote name='evanft']If there's one company that makes their money on rehashes and sequels, it's Nintendo.[/QUOTE]


in some ways true, but they always find ways to innovate what they have already done.

In general, they really know how to make a simple game very very fun. no fuss about it.
 
[quote name='evanft']If there's one company that makes their money on rehashes and sequels, it's Nintendo.[/QUOTE]


Eh, there's a difference between applying a brand to a new game and just rehashing the same gameplay over and over again. Nintendo's been guilty of it (Mario Party) but overall they've kept their long standing franchises a lot fresher than most devs.
 
[quote name='drumbandit']Eh, there's a difference between applying a brand to a new game and just rehashing the same gameplay over and over again. Nintendo's been guilty of it (Mario Party) but overall they've kept their long standing franchises a lot fresher than most devs.[/QUOTE]

i think he's talking about stuff like the nintendo classic series, which i totally agree with.
 
Which reminds me, I don't mean this in a vindictive way, I just can't remember, when was the last time Nintendo launched a new franchise with a new character? And I don't mean something like Wario which is a spin-off of an existing franchise.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl']Which reminds me, I don't mean this in a vindictive way, I just can't remember, when was the last time Nintendo launched a new franchise with a new character? And I don't mean something like Wario which is a spin-off of an existing franchise.[/QUOTE]

Pikman...

Advance Wars...

Nintendogs (though, no real main characters)...


other than that, not much. Nintendo keeps their old characters around because it's like disney with mickey mouse. You have icons that would be almost idiotic to dissown. If that were to happen, it's like bacon without the fat...
 
[quote name='drumbandit']Eh, there's a difference between applying a brand to a new game and just rehashing the same gameplay over and over again. Nintendo's been guilty of it (Mario Party) but overall they've kept their long standing franchises a lot fresher than most devs.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, just because they are using the same characters over and over doesn't mean they are rehashing the gameplay. Mario 64 may have been a Mario game, but it practically invented the 3d platformer. They overuse their characters, but that doesn't mean they don't innovate in gameplay.

I think most companies do the opposite, come up with a new character and story, using the same exact gameplay of half the games in the marketplace. Just look at all the GTA clones in the marketplace.

Nintendo has also created some relatively new franchises, Pikmin, Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, all of which are hardly rehashes.
 
That article makes me think: maybe the Virtual Boy wouldve still tanked even if the thing didnt rape your eyes. The output is different, but the input wasnt really.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']That article makes me think: maybe the Virtual Boy wouldve still tanked even if the thing didnt rape your eyes. The output is different, but the input wasnt really.[/QUOTE]


well, it did have two d-pads... though, it really was never used that well.
 
[quote name='"Penny Arcade"']The final word on why they would do something like this can be found over at Lost Garden. That is probably the most interesting article I've ever read.[/quote]

Glad to see I'm not the only one that liked the article. :razz:


[quote name='"Dr Mario Kart"']
makai_sig3_80.gif
[/quote]

They took all the games off the wishlist a few weeks ago. :cry:
 
I happened to see the article linked to Penny Arcade today, and it was a good read, helps put things about the current generation and those of the past in perspective.
 
Great article that sums up Nintendo's strategy pretty well. I especially liked te part of brands over genres, I think this really describes Nintendo, and it is a nuance that many people miss when they discuss Nintendo's rehashing of brands.

Reposted here since many won't read the whole article

Companies that value brands over genres: People often look at Nintendo’s releases of a half dozen Mario games a year and assume that they are all clones. In fact, they are typically radically different games across a wide variety of genres. Nintendo gains their value from the Mario brand, not ownership of a specific genre. Brand-based companies rely on the creation of new genres since they can take that brand into the genre for a low risk profit opportunity.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Well, the content is nothing that hasn't been discussed before, but with new terminology.

We all know that Nintendo innovates and the other companies pick up on things that work well and then fine tune them. We know Nintendo is able to make money by being different than the other companies. We know that people will be skeptical of new technology when they are familiar and happy with current technology.[/QUOTE]

No, it hasn't been discussed before, at least not this detailed. It gives an insightful and most importantly, an unbiased look at the general ebb and flow of the VG industry. It was a fasinating read. Concrete proof that Nintendo is nowhere near it's demise that many have been claiming since the Virtual Boy. In fact it's rather scary at how much control Nintendo has. The tape that holds this flimsy industry together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top