Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:It will succeed, or at the very least, won't fa (Score 1) 113

Like, say, mostly that Nintendo wanted everyone and their dog to include the stupid handheld-screen-gimmick in their games that didn't really make it very possible to port your games to any other console, so unless you got some Nintendo-exclusive deal you probably didn't want to tie your company's fate to a console that had a lukewarm reception?

Comment Re:It will succeed, or at the very least, won't fa (Score 1) 113

Wrong question. The question isn't "Why wasn't the WiiU a hit?" The question is rather "Why is an abomination like the WiiU, the biggest design blunder in console history (and yes, I do remember the Atari 5200, the 3DO, the Saturn, the Philips CD-i and yes even the Hyperscan, why do you ask?) selling AT ALL instead of going into blissful ignorance like the aforementioned other design atrocities?"

Comment Re:Still hasn't learned (Score 4, Insightful) 113

Nintendo is in the fortunate position that they needn't rely on third party games. They have a pretty well stocked catalog themselves. Mario, Smash Brothers, now probably Pokemon, too, what more "exclusives" do you need?

Noticeably, Nintendo has always been the "odd man out" when it came to games libraries. Non-exclusives for XB or PS usually eventually came out for the other system, but Nintendo always had a nearly distinct game library from the other two. That does matter. It means that Nintendo doesn't have to compete with them on their turf. XB and PS have always been busy one-up'ing each other in specs, mostly because, well, if you have the same games on both systems, what matters is simply "where does it look better" and "where does it run more smoothly". If you're dealing with a completely different game base, you can't compare. More over, the games have a vastly different focus. Where PS and XB focus on action oriented games where multiplayer is mostly a thing of online gaming, Nintendo's consoles always had a distinct focus on local multiplayer, complete with a lineup of party games and controllers that were, compared to XB and PS controllers, VERY basic and simplified, so you didn't first have to learn to play, you could simply pick them up and play. Maybe not perfectly, but most games were of the "easy to pick up" kind that lends itself well to party gaming.

So I do think that Nintendo can (and will) survive as this "niche" player. It has a few strong IPs in their pocket, and since they themselves own that IP, there is exactly zero danger that this IP would ever go to another console, hoping for a bigger market share there. Even the WiiU, which was a train wreck from conception to inception to realization to actually playing with that piece of garbage, couldn't prevent that. I still don't see why anyone thought the WiiU was a good idea, and I don't know anyone who really wanted that console, but, well, there's nowhere else you could play Mario games. And Smash Brothers. And the other consoles simply suck as party consoles. Even more than the WiiU, believe it or not.

Comment Doesn't matter (Score 1) 113

What people will want to know is what the new Mario title is going to be and what characters are going to be in the Smash Brothers title.

Nobody really gives a shit about anything else concerning Nintendo consoles. The gimmicks are the smokescreen to get other console makers desperate, thinking that this is the reason for the Nintendo's success and they embarrass themselves by trying to copy the gimmick only to be shown that the gimmicks were pretty much the reason people were wondering whether they really want to put up with it just to play the next Mario title and Smash Brothers.

Comment Another "Netflix is great" story? (Score 0) 159

As much as I support the mandatory 2-minute-hate-for-Comcast routine we've established, this is maybe trying a bit too hard to establish Netflix as the savior. I mean, at least let 2-3 days pass between stories on how Netflix is going to save us from horrible cable TV.

Comment Re:Possibly it is pay for risk (Score 4, Insightful) 161

What risk? No matter what a dud the CEO is, if the company is really big enough it is "too big to fail" anyway and I get to prop it up with my tax money.

Where the heck is that "risk" for the CEO? If everything fails, my tax money is also going to pay for his golden parachute.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.