I think that the motion controls got everyone's attention because of their newness and the Wii's "cuteness" factor as a little white box sealed the deal with a lot of the non-gaming public that would otherwise be hesitant to purchase a home game console. I think that it was a brilliant strategy that will go down in history as one of the best examples of disruptive marketing in history. Anyone that denies that Nintendo successfully carried out a disruptive strategy this generation is deluding him or herself.

In 'hearts' terminology, Nintendo shot the moon.

I think that nostalgia was also a factor. Think about the kids that were part of the first great Nintendo generation with the NES. During the current generation of consoles, they were turning 30 or 40, were settling into stable careers, having children, and looking for toys for those children to enjoy. Brand recognition is a huge factor and these people would have a natural inclination to turn to Nintendo when it came time to purchase a game system for themselves and their children. The virtual console is there mainly for them; allowing them the opportunity to play the games from their childhood and share that same experience with their kids. With the Wii's low price piont, Nintendo really did make it an easy decision for many people, too.

You really are just as brilliant as a star aren't you? You don't pay fees to any of the manufacturers of the types of devices you mentioned in order to use it. And, when you do pay fees to someone for services, the manufacturer doesn't get a cut.

If you aren't going to even attempt to understand the simplest things, you should just stop arguing with people.

Every game sold for a game console nets the manufacturer a cut. Every piece of DLC. It's in their interest to get the product into as many hands as possible, so it makes sense to sell the hardware at a loss.

Pug-Nasty

So, what you're saying is that this is a problem that console manufacturers and game developers could solve by setting proper market prices INSTEAD of prohibiting used games?

Nintendo doesn't seem to have this problem. Is it because Nintendo insists on profit from its hardware?

The problem is not with consumers purchasing used games.

The problem is with Sony and MS's terrible business plans.

So many incredibly inaccurate comparisons...

Video games are a creative endeavor created by a team of gamers who do their job for the entertainment of the consumers.

Please understand this.

Video games cannot, under any circumstances, be compared to impersonal industries.

The entertainment industry establishes a bond between the developer and the consumer.

It is unique in that regard.

peterw007

Video games are no more unique than books and movies are, yet used books and movies aren't a problem to their respective industries.

The video game industry is absolutley NOT unique. This is about an industry that has been filled with a bunch of petulant prima dona's that wouldn't recognize a day's work if it hit them across the face. This is about those same greedy prima dona's trying to carve a special exemption out for themselves that no other industry has. This is about game developers seeking a PRIVILEGED status in our economy.

My philosophy: None should get special treatment. Ever. Under any circumstances. The video game industry should function under the identical rules that all other industries function under.

Game developers and publishers these days are nothing but a bunch of whining prima donas. What a bunch of pathetic drama queens they are crying like babies because customers have the gall to purchase and sell used games. The buying and selling of used products is not a problem in ANY OTHER industry. We buy and sell used cars, furniture, books, movies, houses, boats, airplanes, works of art, motorcycles, pink lawn flamencos, martini glasses, board games, and just about everything else that one can think of on the market. Why are used products a problem in the gaming industry and the gaming industry alone? Does that make LOGICAL or SCIENTIFIC sense to anyone? What is so special about the gaming industry that it requires protection against the buying and selling of used games?

Nothing. They're not crying because of a need. They're crying because they are greedy.

You mean other then the fact that a gold standard would cause catastropic deflation?majoras_wrath

Deflation is only catastrophic if you build an economy around debt, consumption, and spending.

It is not the only type of free-market economy that is possible. If you aim for a completely debt-free (and therefore, bank-free) economy, then deflation is not catastrophic. It hasn't been tried in the modern era, but failure cannot be assumed.

I question the necessity of having bankers playing money games.

Today, we value spending over saving, which is a highly irrational position. People are encouraged to spend rather than save. Look at the ridiculous spectacle that Christmas in the US has become. The sight of Americans stumbling over each other to see who can spend their cash the fastest during the annual sell-out of faith makes me want to vomit.

If there was one arbitrary thing that I could unilaterally abolish, it would be the tradition of gift-giving on Christmas.

We really need to stop spending...both our government and we need to stop spending as if wealth were limitless. As for those that lose their jobs in a more spendthrift society...they will adapt or die.

I'd vote for Obama before him....he has some good ideas but a lot of his policies would be a disaster if he some how manage to get them implemented.

UnknownSniper65

Which ones? Ending the war on drugs? Ending the random middle eastern wars this country is involved in? Ending the printing of unbacked currency?

I don't see where the disaster is. Is it a disaster to expect the dollar bill in my wallet to represent a real value?

Oh you sure showed me. Yes. I do know what the term machine means in political terms. I've just never heard it used in such an comical manner.majoras_wrath

It's obvious from your previous post that you didn't understand the terminology. You even bolded the word machine as if it were some sort of aberration. What exactly is comical about a candidate claiming to stand up to a political machine?

It is a common theme in American political campaigns.

:lol: Ads like this are so ridiculous. "Stood up the the Washington machine" like he is some sort of superhero. And yes, I do realize its the point, but it's really silly.

majoras_wrath

If you know your history, then you know that in American politics a machine is a perfectly normal term used to refer to the various groups and cabals that can take over a political system and run it for their own interests.

The term machine has been used in this context since the 19th century. That you don't understand the terminology and it's historical context is not the fault of the ad-makers.

Usually? Yes.

But not always. You have to understand, it really doesn't take much to be smarter than the average person. The sentient and civilized nature of our species rides on a razor's edge, as it always has and I fear as it always will.

He already has my vote, but I like the ad. It emphasizes what should be most important to voters: consistent principles.

It really angers me that there is practically a media blackout in effect against Ron Paul. He represents a challenge to many powerful people on both the right and the left, precisely because he challenges the traditional right vs left false dichotomy that has made a mess of American politics.