Hacker News Reader

Comment by recuter | Hacker News Reader

> "Rovio, in comparison, is estimated between the $2B-$9B range. If Angry Birds is worth that, what is Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc. combined worth?"

I don't know, what is nostalgia worth? A lot more kids know and crave Rovio IP these days. Sure, Mario/Zelda is recognizable and part of the zeitgeist but then so is Pacman.

View on HN

These brands are still ridiculously recognizable worldwide. And Nintendo owns many of them.

I'd argue that Pokemon alone even today is worth more than Angry Birds.

It can't be nostalgia if these kids have never experienced what a real video game should be.

This is the problem with your thought process. Video games have changed. What you think they should be isn't what they are now. You don't continue, and grow as a company by targeting a shrinking demographic.

What is this 'shrinking demographic' exactly?

People nostalgic for Mario, Link, etc.

Well you don't have to be 'nostalgic' to like those games as Nintendo have made sure to release new iterations for every new hardware platform and also in different genre's than the original (Super Mario/Mario Kart).

Granted they are exclusive to Nintendo hardware which given their current diminishing hardware market share will mean less exposure, but it's not as if kids today don't know who Mario/Link/Samus are, only difference is that they know Mario/Link/Samus from the Wii/DS/3DS games instead of NES/SNES/N64 games.

I'd argue that the more-hardcore gaming market isn't shrinking.

It is, that's why the new consoles highlighted their non-gaming features. You can't just sell people game systems anymore, you have to provide an entire entertainment package.

I don't think those two facts are particularly related. I'm a hardcore gamer but I wouldn't buy a console if it didn't have interesting entertainment features (and great game line-up) or I'd just stick to PC. The growth of Steam and popularity of game emulation (which I'd wager is higher than ever) probably show that the hardcore market isn't going anywhere. You could probably compile Humble Bundle data too.

Again, I don't have hard data, but the situation doesn't seem as bad as some may think.

You're basing it off your experiences as a hardcore game interacting with hardcore gamers. The amount of people that wouldn't describe themselves as gamers that have emulated older games is a number at best in the quadruple digits. That isn't a big enough base to make money. If you want to make money you target the masses. The masses don't care about their parents video game characters.

Something is wrong with your thought process when you think the most dominant type of games are touch screen games. Video games haven't changed, there are just different types of games now. Some of which are limited by their lack of controls. Last time I checked gamers still exist, many of which don't play touch games.

Don't forget who had utilized a touch screen for games properly.

Yes, but as this article and many others have discussed; that number is shrinking. Gamers still exists, but you don't make billions of gamers. You make billions of consumers as a whole, and convincing people to buy yet another piece of hardware to do something is a hard sell. "I could just use this thing I carry with me everywhere," or, "I could buy a 2nd dedicated device that only does games (well)"

I'm aware the DS/3DS/etc do more than games, but anyone that uses the DS browser and thinks it's good is a liar.

I didn't reply to your first point. I'm not saying touch screen games are the dominant type, and neither is the article. The article is asserting that's the way things are going unless we get a monumental shift in gaming, which doesn't seem to be coming based off current announcements. Both of us are asserting: "Nintendo is ignoring the sea change in the world and coasting. This is a recipe for disaster."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com