There is, and you're using "facts" out of context, even if they have been losing market share, that doesn't mean it's down to the input device
You are not even following the thread of this discussion and are falling into contradictions. You yourself began the thread by correlating market share with input method. Here's the proof:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=182776238
oni-link said:
Standard controller
Anything else will put off a greater number of people than a weird design will attract
So you are the one that brought up risk of losing market share due to input choice into the conversation first. i just replyed with facts and those are: that the company has been losing market share since the SNES. Also please refrain from atributing arguments i haven't made in the first place just as a way to reply them yourself.
Also saying Nintendo have always used gimmicks is missing the point, whether that is technically true or not (it's not) there has never been an outcry until the Wii and Wii U, even the 3 pronged N64 controller was more or less accepted (after being ridiculed of course), because it was still a standard controller, just an iteration on what came before
You are contradicting yourself again in many ways. You are admiting there were outcries when the N64 controller was revealed, not mention lots of misconceptions about it. Adding to this The N64 it's one of the most ginmicky equiped controllers NIntendo has deviced:
-Multiple postures/schemes setups (see Wii Remote)
-Enhanced feedback systems with the Rumble ( see Wii Remote Speaker)
-Modular oriented design via expansion port (see Wii Remote modular usability)
-Revisited method of controlling games in 3D space with thumbstick. (see Wii Remote revisited method of controlling games in 3D space via IMUs and MEMS sensors)
You're also being either naive or disingenuous with your repeated use of the Gamecube sales to back up your points, when the Gamecube, (like everything else) was unlucky enough to have been launched vs the PS2, had the PS2 launched with a PS3 style price and shortage of games, maybe the Gamecube would have done better.
Except im not the one being disingeneous here. i beg of you to not take this personally and just look at the facts:
-SNES had a drop of market share coming from NES.
-N64 yet have a significant drop of market share coming from the SNES.
-GameCube another drop of market share.
The reason the GameCube tends to be single out or called upon more in this discussions it's because it was the lowest point of market share until the trend was reversed with the Wii.
That said the PS2 is the perfect way to follow up a console if you want to do well, keep it familiar, keep it affordable, and attack on all fronts with great software
The PS4 started well and did the same thing (as did the 360, as did the SNES), kept things familiar with what came before, and pushed more power and focused on games. It gave the people what they want. No one wanted the Wii U gamepad, and no one cares about the possibilities of second screen gaming.
You are been naive in this case.
The reason that strategy works it's because it suits Sony quite well, as a more resourceful and tech wise oriented company (see their machine working as trojan horses for their own technologies DVD/BluRay) What you want Nintendo to do is to adopt the same exact model and go head on to compete more directly. But you see, Sony and MS are doing a fine job fulfilling that strategy so having a 3rd leg tagging on trying to the same thing with the added risk of failing miserably ( since NIntendo is way behind in terms of games as service). i would dare to say.... is not wise really.
What Nintendo desperatly needs is to make more balanced hardware, that is quite true. Yet they should still keep fiting their devices with out of the ordinary features.
The Wii is an unusual case because it was lucky enough to ride the casual wave before smartphones ate up that audience, but either way, those people are gone now, so there is little point trying to sell them dedicated gaming hardware while they have a smartphone on them at all times. No one who wants a dedicated games system cares about pointer controls, and if you want to aim your console at the ones that do, then prepare to sell under 10m units
Your perspective is too narrow.
The Wii was "THE POPULAR CONSOLE" just like the PS2 was, the difference been that it was less traditional in how it achieved that status. Also you seem to forget that PS2 also have a peripheral attraction outside of gaming as it was a competent and accessible way to play DVDs.
Regarding the point about Mobile, well the phenomenon is eating market share from every dedicated gaming device for obvious reasons. Not just the Wii as you are trying to portrait.
The standard controller is the best we have for controlling an object in 3D space, it's not perfect for shooting games and games where aiming is important (which is something that came to prominence in the 7th gen as it became the dominant genre) but Nintendo already solved that with the gyro, all they need to do is release the NX with a good price, decent power and gyro enabled Wii U Pro controller
Anything else will sell under 10m
No, Dual Thumbsticks is not the best way to control objects in 3D space. The exception would be controlling character movement as the feedback it gives is still useful.
Also it is hilarious to see you mentioning the Gyro here (a motion sensor) when it is something that was popularized in gaming by the Wii, that ginmicky console XD
And with that we are done with the interchange regarding the matter in this thread, at least until you take the care to adress the arguments substantially.
, I'll say bring on the Gamepad 2.0, it's concept is a good one, just upgrade it
