noiseredux wrote:I feel like I'm either not getting across what I'm trying to say here, or you're misunderstanding me.
I was responding specifically to the statement:
it's just that they have a large fan base willing to buy whatever they sell because Nintendo/Apple is the ones selling it.
Most of the time I hear people talk about brand loyalty in the context of a fan base that will buy whatever they sell, the implication of the person making that claim is that the product isn't actually that good and the brand loyalty is effectively blind fanboyism. My response was more of a knee-jerk reaction to that kind of statement than a natural extension of your argument. So I think perhaps my brain clicked into autopilot for that last post.
noiseredux wrote:I tend to think that Nintendo and Apple both make a bulk of their money thanks to brand loyalty. That is, it's not necessarily that they make great decisions, it's just that they have a large fan base willing to buy whatever they sell because Nintendo/Apple is the ones selling it.
The only way brand loyalty works, though, is if you give your customers worthwhile products. The companies most renowned for brand loyalty actually generate high quality products and typically have good customer service. Apple has definitely released problematic products that hurt their reputation and their brand loyalty, and then they came back from them by implementing course correction. Same for Nintendo.
but as I stated from the get go, their products ARE worthwhile. It's their decisions on how to get those products into consumers' hands I think are poor.
I feel like I'm either not getting across what I'm trying to say here, or you're misunderstanding me.
I think I get it, noise. You like their products and can (generally) see what demographics the company is aiming for with those products, but questioning and confused by their marketing strategy.
Michi wrote:I think I get it, noise. You like their products and can (generally) see what demographics the company is aiming for with those products, but questioning and confused by their marketing strategy.
I get that part of it, too. I think I'm just finding it very easy to imagine reasons for that apparent mismatch. Like, I think the WiiU as a console was just a bad idea, but I can completely understand why Nintendo might have thought it was a great idea. I can envision in my head a perfectly reasonable and rational thought process that might have carried them through whatever doubts there might have been (doubts which likely proved true, if market performance is any indication.)
It's the same with this SNES Classic Mini. I totally understand the frustration from folks who are used to just being able to order what they want on-line. But for some reason part of my brain is too willing to accept that there's reasons for all that and then go ahead and imagine what those reasons might be.
I am probably a bit too much an apologist in this way. My attitude toward Nintendo on this may be just as frustrating to some as Nintendo's own behavior
Michi wrote:I think I get it, noise. You like their products and can (generally) see what demographics the company is aiming for with those products, but questioning and confused by their marketing strategy.
this, yes.
So when I said that they do have a big fanbase with brand loyalty (they do!), I totally agree that it is because they make good products. But that has nothing to do with their marketing strategies, or how they deliver their products into the hands of consumers. But many consumers are okay with giving them a pass on some of their odd choices, BECAUSE the products are good.
Marurun wrote:I am probably a bit too much an apologist in this way. My attitude toward Nintendo on this may be just as frustrating to some as Nintendo's own behavior
Well yes... you are kind of expressing the exact views of that "brand loyalty" group I'm referencing haha.
Marurun wrote:I am probably a bit too much an apologist in this way. My attitude toward Nintendo on this may be just as frustrating to some as Nintendo's own behavior
Well yes... you are kind of expressing the exact views of that "brand loyalty" group I'm referencing haha.
What's interesting about this is I'm actually not huge fan of that many Nintendo products or franchises, or even systems. Nintendo is so often just not my particular jam.
Marurun wrote:I am probably a bit too much an apologist in this way. My attitude toward Nintendo on this may be just as frustrating to some as Nintendo's own behavior
Well yes... you are kind of expressing the exact views of that "brand loyalty" group I'm referencing haha.
What's interesting about this is I'm actually not huge fan of that many Nintendo products or franchises, or even systems. Nintendo is so often just not my particular jam.
Nah! It's called level-headedness and you got it in spades!
Ack wrote:I don't know, chief, the haunting feeling of lust I feel whenever I look at your avatar makes me think it's real.
-I am the idiot that likes to have fun and be happy.
I do like the counterpoint to all the frustrations directed at Nintendo for all this. I can understand to a degree (if some of this speculation has any truth).
However, I've got to think that they misunderstand their audience base almost entirely.
I wonder that if supply and demand were not an issue, how many customers would go the VC route for games (assuming the switch gets the same selection) and how many would want a one time mini-console buy? I'm leaning towards the console would still sell more and that VC demand would stay pretty much the same either way (different audience base). It's the way of the consumer.
I don't have any numbers to base on either, nor do I want to get into the psychology of it, but if you are going to market it to classic gaming players, I think most only see the value if getting an actual product.
As for myself, a VC release model is only going to work for me in an open user environment (GOG or drm-free humble bundles). Of course, that's a whole new can of worms...
I do think it would be neat if they offered the same bundle of games on Switch for a cheaper price though, just on principle.
Finally, can I point out how this SNES Classic makes a fine companion to an Everdrive equipped system? Plays well on newer TV's, plays 5 special chip games, makes the old new again, let's younger players see why you like the 90's so much with an appealing interface and new features.
I can't speak for anyone but myself but to answer your question about if I knew all 21 of them hit the Switch during its VC life, hell even if they did it as a bundle package, would I buy it on there or a stand alone product?
I'd still buy the system. Not out of memories, not out of nostalgia either being the primary concern. I'd buy it because I'd like to OWN the unit, have something tangible and can be kept (like a GOG download to a permanent storage piece as you noted) but also because I'm strongly feel that it will be a far more longer lasting and durable solution than a flimsy tablet console. Also Nintendo doesn't like to allow accounts with bound files (like GoG and Steam, hell include the other guys like Sony too.) I have a huge problem with that. I don't feel the need to piss tens or hundreds or even thousands of dollars in video games to have a system break, die, or get stolen, and then have to call Nintendo and kiss ass, cry like a little kid, or verbally fellate the rep in hopes they'll flip the magic switch and have all those things I paid for reassigned to my next system serial number as it's insane.
That aside I also value it for its durability, portability, ease of use, no nonsense instant boot up system setup, just a no bullshit environment damn near as simple if not easier than firing up the 25 year old beast itself. That's why, personal controlled ownership and those other points I just said too.
Oh well even in that case I'd still stick with the dedicated system as I'd feel it was a safer long term bet/investment. Though it would be pretty tempting still for on the go on Switch.
