I think the gaming industry is in for another market crash
in the vein of 1983's. I've lived through and enjoyed four of the (as of now)
eight generations of video games and I still have yet to find a system that I
play more than the NES. Each successive generation has boasted better
technology but increasingly shorter life spans. The NES was released in the US in
1985 and discontinued in 1995. In Japan it was in retail from 1983 and finally
discontinued in 2003. Yes, you read that right. So the system's shelf life was
10-20 years. I think it's a testament to how well-made the games were and are
even with the limitations in technology at the time.
Compare this with the Playstation 3, which has approximately
772 games in its library as of January 2013. It's the most expensive console of
its generation ($499 on its release in the US) and yet has the least amount of
games exclusive to its technology. Eight console exclusives, according to my
research. Does that make the PS3 a bad system? No, I don't think so. It's a
well-made console and I enjoy playing on it. But Sony is not even making use of
the great tech that they're gushing about having. They could be making so many
great games but what are they doing? What is Microsoft doing? They're giving us
consoles where we can play Blu-Ray discs and watch cable television. Wait,
these are GAMING consoles, right? For all the gimmick crap Nintendo has been
putting out with the Wii and Wii U, at least it's an attempt toward advancing
the gaming industry and not being tangential to it.
When the NES arrived on the US scene in 1985, nobody wanted
to sell video games anymore. The market had become oversaturated by system
after system with smaller and smaller libraries of games (mostly ports) that
were failing to the arcades and computer market. Nintendo of America made the
shrewd decision to market it as an "entertainment system", which convinced
toy stores and the like to carry the console and sell it. And by 1987 this paid
off. Now what did they do exactly?
For one, they recognized the potential of third party
support. But they also tightly regulated it. They could've easily relied on
these other companies to bring the money in. They had no real competition
either. Sega's Master System suffered from terrible advertising and a lack of
the aforementioned third party support (Nintendo keeping most of those in their
pocket contractually). They had the lion's share of the market but they knew
what they had in front of them. They saw the potential and actualized it. Many
times they PUSHED the limits of the console. This brings me to my next point.
A lot of Nintendo's critics tend to point toward a constant
reliance on their established franchises without really considering why. The
most obvious reason is name recognition. In the 90s, more children could
identify a picture of Mario than Mickey Mouse. Another reason... they're good
games. Can you think of an absolutely awful Zelda
game? (And no, the CD-i games don't count because it's not Nintendo) How about Metroid? Super Smash Bros.? Yeah, neither can I. So if they're great games
then it gives them a good name and the cycle perpetuates. They can try new and
innovative ideas for a game and still be able to sell and expose it if they put
Mario's face on it. It's good business sense. I doubt we would be talking about the merits
and game play of Doki Doki Panic if
it had never been localized into Super
Mario Bros. 2.
Maybe I’m jumping at shadows here. But I really like having
a system that is constantly being pushed to its limits and has an ambitious
company behind it that wants to re-invent and revitalize and believes in its
product. And what I am seeing right now
is an industry that’s hit a plateau with where it can take gaming and gives up
far too quickly and settles by supplementing with stuff we already have.
I’m going to play my NES now.
