685
So much for the lawsuit (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 164 points 3 months ago (16 children)

Nintendo should've innovated more than sticking controllers on an extra-large phone and squatting on their old IP like a dragon's hoard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 80 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    The switch was/is a giant hit though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Surely they're referring to the Wii-U. The Switch is not innovative. It's a Wii-U derivative.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    The Switch was innovative? So much so that, upon seeing it's success, literally everyone copied them in one form or another?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Its not innovative to smash controllers onto a smartphone device. What is innovative was their optimization for mobile gaming. Its similar to saying valve is innovative for selling other peoples games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I mean if you're being that reductive, sure, a handheld gaming system wouldn't be innovative. The innovation comes from a console that switches from handheld mode and a docked TV mode. The innovation is a pair of controllers that work both as the built-in handheld controllers, and controllers that can be used when the console is docked. The innovation is that the controllers can behave either as a pair of controllers or a single controller. Sure, they aren't super significant innovations, but it's more than you see from other consoles. I don't see the similarity in your last statement, but I guess I could be missing something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    My issue with the whole innovative discussion is it tends to forget that Nintendo just liked to do gimmicky things that don't always work out. Smartphones were getting to that point with telescopic controllers without NIntendo. I guess i'm being a little nitpicky, hope you have a good weekend :).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    And I guess what I'm getting at is that, if trying to do gimmicky things that might not work out isn't the definition of innovation, what is? And telescopic phone controllers are kind of in line with "controllers that can be used in handheld/docked mode," so I could understand an argument that that aspect of the switch isn't innovative

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yakuza and innovation don't mix. Yakuza and rent-seeking however...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'm so confused.. There are so many valid reasons to hate on Nintendo, but you guys come up with two that aren't valid? Nintendo is the only one of the big three that genuinely innovates when it comes to console design. Rent seeking? They're the only one of the big three that doesn't try to lock you into a subscription for your games. Every game that they make for their console is still sold as a physical cartridge with the full game on it. Even their online services are the cheapest of the three.

    They don't innovate when it comes to games, sure, but that's not what you folks were saying. Their games never go on sale and are overpriced, sure, but that's not rent seeking. Like I said, there's so much to dislike about Nintendo and how they run things, but the two examples here that seem to clearly resonate with people are just wrong, and I'm not sure why people are upvoting them. Maybe I'm missing something

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    What do you mean they don't try to get you to get a subscription? You need a Nintendo subscription to do anything online so not sure how in a digital online age where everyone is connected you somehow managed to convince yourself Nintendo doesn't try to lock you in to a subscription. That's all they do with the switch like no ones having their friends over to play Mario kart they are going online. Console Internet subscriptions should die but consoles aren't powerful enough I presume to host their own lobbies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You're right, they do go for an online subscription. I guess my distinction was that access to your games aren't lost if you aren't paying the subscription. However, I realize that they do that for access to the retro games, so I'll retract the rent-seeking statement, they've definitely moved to having more rent-seeking behaviour. My use case of the Switch just doesn't interact with it in any way. I play games in split screen or local wireless multiplayer, which doesn't require a subscription.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent