They're the only ones trying anything at all in terms of hardware; Sony and MS have always just targetted being a locked-down PC.
And in terms of games, it's also the same case; most first party games are evolutions or reiterations in Sony and MS universe, whereas Nintendo both does rehashes as well as dramatically different designs in each of their staple series.
That they're flawed innovations (turning them into gimmicks), perhaps, but looking at the big 3, they're the only hope of change. The innovation you expect from MS and Sony boils down to media center and absurdities like disks being shipped with only the data necessary to tell your Xbox where to download the game..
The Switch's design is a pretty big innovation, and has been wildly successful despite all of the many, many hurdles in both the hardware and software implications of its various modes.
they hit that sweet spot of folks who like to play games but aren't into the graphics as much as spec-heads. you can argue all you want about frame rates and resolutions and shaders, but at the end of the day, smash brothers is consistently more -fun- than any other game. that's why nintendo is basically able to keep selling us the same games over and over with each generation: they're all -fun- to play.
Also pretty much the last refuge of video games as a social activity offline. Everyone on the couch playing together.
For PS4, Xbox, and PC I never find someone with enough controllers for 4+ players. Even if indie developers make these games people don't buy the gear to play them. They're almost designed for single player and only online multiplayer.
On the other hand almost every Nintendo console will always have many controllers. They company produces high quality party games, and in the case of the switch they're literally selling joycons two at a time which means indie developers can rely on players having 4 or 6 or even 8 controllers.
I honestly think the revival of board games is because of this gap that video games created when this type of play was abandoned in favor of online experiences and graphics.
Modern bidets heat the water and the seat, and nobody I know with one (including myself) doesn’t have TP next to the toilet too, you just need very little of it.
As someone with a bidet, there's no way in hell I'm sharing a butt towel. The bidet wash isn't completely effective. It's not the same as sharing a hand towel.
In the article it says 80 percent of the investments fail. If you can have that risk, I genuinely don't see the problem.
Heck for my personal angel investments I use 95 percent will fail. Yes it's risky, but the entire point was to find something that returns in the hundreds of percents rather than 7%.
The math works out.
I only worry about evil businesses getting this VC money or uneducated people making bad decisions on investments.
Parent was referring to the “hundreds” part, not the 7. If 5% of your bets win, but only pay off in the hundreds %, you’re going bankrupt. You need at least 2000% return, amortised over the winners, to break even. More to beat that 7%.
> In the article it says 80 percent of the investments fail
No, the article claims that if 80% fail (but define failure: zero return? 1x?), the other 20% must return 30x in order for the fund as a whole to return 20%. Then it goes on to say that the average fund over 2 decades only broke even. This means that the successful 20% aren't returning the requisite 30x.
> the entire point was to find something that returns in the hundreds of percents rather than 7%.
Right, and if you don't find that something, the fund doesn't work. Funds aren't finding those somethings.
>> A chastening study by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in 2012 found that the average venture-capital fund in the previous two decades, far from delivering its promised returns, had scarcely broken even.
VC are selling to LPs the same thing that VC-funded startups are selling to their employees.
> I only worry about evil businesses getting this VC money
And not about the other point they make in the article? :
>> if your rivals are growing wildly at an early stage, and with good hookups, you’re obliged to play the game in order to keep up.
VC is forcing companies that would otherwise be viable bootstrapped businesses, to fail. Then the VC-backed companies fail as well, and everyone is the poorer for it.
> uneducated people making bad decisions on investments
Generally, you have to be an accredited investor to invest in a VC fund, and funds aren't really allowed to advertise, so it's not easily available to most people. The post-2008 JOBS Act made it easier to regular investors to angel-invest, but I haven't heard tons of popping up from it yet.
I'm more worried about pension funds investing in PE and VC.
Genuinely curious how this works for an angel investor if the failure rate is 95%. How many companies do you have to invest in in order to spread the risk of that 95%?
Most angle investors are either about to lose their shirt, or very lucky or very smart (it's hard to tell the difference between those last two). They usually can only do a few deals before they're spent out. Then they wait to either get 100 times their money or nothing.
They're sort of like guys buying lottery tickets, except the ticket costs more than most houses.
Vc Funds are plying the same game but on an industrial scale. So they get more average returns. Maybe better on average but maybe not for their investors as fees eat into that.
An angle with very deep pockets is probably more like a mini VC fund than an angle. They'll hire people to find and vet investments and maybe pool capital to spread costs and risks.
Angel investors are not VC funds. They can approach risk very differently. They don't really need to spread the risk or mitigate it if they don't want to. No one is auditing their investments (besides the tax man). The angel investors I spoke to when I was running my last startup really didn't need to make a profit. They wanted to make a profit because that meant success for a business they thought should exist (and would use in their other businesses in my case), but if they didn't they've only lost some money that they could afford to lose.
I get that but, how much money do angel investors have? How long before the 95% failure rate drains their capital?
You'd need at least 20 investments to even think about maybe beating that 95% failure rate, that seems like a very high number of investments for one person to find, evaluate, fund and wait before the 95% catches up to you.
You don't need 20 before it's more likely than not that you get a success. And I'm doubtful that the majority of angel investors actual have a net positive return.
It's a trade off, you're getting entertainment but you're trading away creative brain problem solving time that occurs when you idle on a commute or whatever.
I think most gamers would consider any innovation since a gimmick or a terrible executed idea.
I don't think Nintendo could invent a new logo or new game. They seem like an antiquated company with a big marketing budget and high margin products.