@Baconstrip78: It's not just 'roids, the pain medication is another big factor. And in a few extreme cases like Chris Benoit's, CTE was the big culprit.
@boom4real: I'd argue that N64's graphics aged significantly better than the PS1's, and I can think of a few strong titles aside from the ones you already mentioned that make it hard for me to justify the term "content drought". I do agree that their reluctance to adapt to evolving technologies has always been one of their shortcomings, though. First it was games on discs, then it was online functionality, and in both cases it came back to bite them.
@gio-007-xbl: Yeah, they could definitely do with some hardware updates. At least then it wouldn't be so embarrassing when they port last-gen games and still have to lower the graphics settings.
@robertrulez: Gamecube WAS one of their best systems, but unfortunately it couldn't stand up to the dominating power of the PS2 even with superior hardware and a strong library. Nintendo 64 was another great system with a strong library that couldn't stand up to the PS1's dominance (even though the N64's library has stood the test of time better). And after some early success with the Wii, they fell back into a pattern of low sales that lasted until a couple of years into the Switch's life. The lesson is clear: Nintendo can't win on hardware or by chasing trends, they need to appeal to their core fanbase.
The next Nintendo console isn't GOING to be better for third parties because that's not how Nintendo makes their money. They make their money on the strength of their IP and re-selling their older games to new audiences. For better or worse, that's their niche, and they're leaning into it because they've finally realized they can't compete with Sony and Microsoft on hardware specs and AAA releases. They've found a business model that works for them, and backing away from that would mean repeating the failures of the late 2000's and early to mid-2010's.
Oh boy, so now I can continue to NOT pay to watch the garbage modern Hollywood produces without sounding like a grumpy old coot to the spendthrift masses that populate the world.
You could honestly just say there's Star Fox 64 and everything else. 64 perfected the formula, and every game after was either a clumsy attempt to branch out like Assault or a bad remake like Zero. And then there's Dinosaur Planet, which was just a forgettable platformer with the IP hastily slapped on.
Remember Horse Armor? You know, Patient Zero for paid cosmetics? Cost $2. Know how much the actual content DLCs for the same game cost? $2.50 to $5, with the actual expansion costing a bit more. There's your solution. Keep the costs somewhat reasonable.
Alternatively, let the free market speak for itself. If people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a single cosmetic item, then they're idiots, but at the end of the day if people are willing to pay to support questionable business practices then you can't really fault the business for it.
@judaspete: I can understand that sentiment. The only classic MK I played was the port of 2 that was hidden in Shaolin Monks, but the extremely limited attack options made it feel pretty archaic as arcade fighting games go.
BLKCrystilMage's comments