Support NeoGAF

[AZ Greg]

Secondly, visual jump does not seem to be happening this gen. Even on gaf people are arguing and are trying to find nuances to prove or disprove the jump. Do you expect the mass market to realize that ps4 has rendered the leather texture in a racing game more realistically compared to ps3?

This is misleading. The jump is clear when looking at PS3/360 > PS4 (Based on what little was shown). The reason for the arguments here is because high-end PC gaming is much more popular on GAF now compared to the last generation transition. But the same thing was actually going on back then. If you played F.E.A.R., for example, maxed out it looked as good, and some would argue better, than a lot of what we saw during the 360's launch. That didn't stop your average gamer, who didn't own a high-end gaming PC, from seeing the clear differences in their Halos and Maddens vs. the previous generation. Just like they'll clearly see the difference during this new generation with their CoDs and Maddens.

 

[farnham]

No, I don't think the visual jump will be as big this time around. You're not going to be able to sum up PS4/Durango with a simple screenshot that people will be able to immediately discern as better than the previous gen. However, that's NOT where the jump is this gen. Bigger worlds, more seamless worlds, VASTLY more intelligent AI (that can be produced in larger number), unprecedented (in console gaming) levels of social interactivity and, yes, in later years vastly improved visuals. With the Wii U's current specs it might be the case that it just can't keep up on any number of these areas. The hardware will improve more than just the visuals.

I do agree that PS360 will continue to be viable platforms going into the future, though. Iwata better hope that a large audience sees the worth in buying a Nintendo console for last-gen 3rd party ports and new Nintendo games. Hey, stranger things have happened.

so how many publishers will be able to make worlds even more vast than they are now with even better visuals and consistant performance?

This is misleading. The jump is clear when looking at PS3/360 > PS4 (Based on what little was shown). The reason for the arguments here is because high-end PC gaming is much more popular on GAF now compared to the last generation transition. But the same thing was actually going on back then. If you played F.E.A.R., for example, maxed out it looked as good, and some would argue better, than a lot of what we saw during the 360's launch. That didn't stop your average gamer, who didn't own a high-end gaming PC, from seeing the clear differences in their Halos and Maddens vs. the previous generation. Just like they'll clearly see the difference during this new generation with their CoDs and Maddens.

It is not. The jump is not as noticable as it was before and its already subject to discussion on gaf. This means that the general public will recognize the jump even less.

If you look at a good looking ps2 or xbox game and comare it to a launch 360 game like pgr3 you still recognize a jump. Even more with games like gears. Thats just not the case this time around. Especially for the untrained eye the difference will be hard to recognize.

 

[Coolwhip]

The hybrid has to be the end goal here. Aside from the moves they've made recently by unifying their development, it makes too much sense for Nintendo. They can put all their teams on a single platform that you can take with you or plug into your TV.

Cant wait for that tbh.

 

[H_Prestige]

Nintendo would never be the same as a software or hardware company, they need to do both to really function successfully.

Disagree completely. Control-wise, the Wii U is exactly the same as MS and Sony consoles. The second screen will be just like the DS. Nothing that affects game design on a fundamental level. It's not like motion controls on the Wii.

 

[Tookay]

In all honesty, I think it's better Nintendo negotiates now with whatever power they have left in the market.

Wii U would have to skyrocket in popularity to keep Nintendo from going another gen without considering this agreement. Because what's more fearful is if Sony/MS get in on the act making Nintendo look even more insignificant.

They don't have the third party to bail them out when making games takes longer to do.

So you're implicitly agreeing that their negotiating position is weakening, especially into next-gen?

And yet you think Microsoft/Sony wouldn't take advantage of this fact? And that a partnership could be established where they wouldn't exploit Nintendo, where Nintendo could just be themselves?

That's where I'm getting at. There's no way that a perfectly equitable 50/50 distribution of control/autonomy is set up, when one company is clearly currently faltering. There's no way Microsoft would strike a deal where Nintendo's the one in a position of power. And there's no way that Nintendo would accept a deal where they weren't.

The "one console future" may or may not happen, but, if it does, it sure as hell won't be because Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony want to split the pie (and profits) in thirds by partnering up. It'll be because it stops being profitable for two companies and they throw their hands up, leaving the pie to the others. Which even then I think won't happen, because - like Microsoft felt about Sony in 2000 - other companies would be wary about letting one company/console control the living room. You'd see Google/Apple or somebody jump in the ring then.

 

[Tobor]

Your strategy sounds way more short sighted and screams ios cash in to me.

I feel like you're selectively reading. I already stated I would want a well diversified portfolio.

 

[farnham]

The hybrid has to be the end goal here. Aside from the moves they've made recently by unifying their development, it makes too much sense for Nintendo. They can put all their teams on a single platform that you can take with you or plug into your TV.

You can already do it with psp... Right?

I feel like you're selectively reading. I already stated I would want a well diversified portfolio.

You can call it what you want. At the end of the day its "hey games like angry birds is selling well. Lets do our version with mario for 99 cents"

Nintendo does not want that because they want to get more money for one license and they dont want to give apple a cut. Seem to be enough business reasons for me.

 

[wsippel]

This is a good example of the shortsightedness that is hurting Nintendo.

The users buying software on iOS in high volume aren't going to buy Nintendo hardware to then spend $60 on software anyway.

Besides, it wouldn't be the same investment and product. Low risk, low ROI product for the casual audience, higher risk higher ROI product for the core audience.

You tailor product to the audience and increase the size of the overall market, and enhance the value of your brand.

Any such game would be on eShop. Not AppStore, not Google Play. Every title exclusive to their platforms, eShop or retail, is a potential selling point for that platform.

 

[royalan]

The thing about price and moderate specs is that Nintendo may have been faced with the following two choices:

1. Create a console that was nothing more than a Core Game Box (tm) which consists of a deck and a generic dual-shock style gamepad. Give it "modest" specs by PS4/Xbox 720 standards, so that it's not killing Nintendo on every sale. But it's still in the neighborhood.

Possible result: Nintendo's box has nothing going for it unless you have to have Nintendo games. By still having the weakest specs, 3rd party ports will be inferior even if it gets all the ports. With nothing 'special' about the box, there's no reason for anyone besides Nintendo fans to buy it. And Nintendo loses a lot of money on each one.

I think you're making a huge leap here.

Without the burden of the gamepad, I think Nintendo could have easily afforded to upgrade the specs of the Wii U to something more within PS4/Durango ballpark while still maintaining what modest profit margin they have currently. They could have still made money on hardware. And it wouldn't have mattered that the Wii U would have had inferior ports, MOST players don't care about that as long as they get the games, period. Just look at PS2 - it had the inferior version of a ton of multiplatform games to come out that gen, but at the end of the day it didn't matter because the library itself was rich.

Something I also think you're overlooking is the fact that, for all their yapping about it, the Gamepad as an appealing gimmick has so far been completely ineffective. Touchscreens for the sake of touchscreens just isn't a huge selling point in a time when pretty much everything has a touchscreen. Nintendo should have been smart enough to know that throwing in a gimmick for the sake of throwing in a gimmick isn't a guarantee that you'll reach a new audience. And, at this point, I think it's more than fair to question if it was worth it. This gamer says fuck no.

 

[Unknown One]

Partnerships wouldn't work for Nintendo period. Just take a look at the past with Sony and Philips.

 

[JordanN]

So you're implicitly agreeing that their negotiating position is weakening, especially into next-gen?

And yet you think Microsoft/Sony wouldn't take advantage of this fact? And that a partnership could be established where they wouldn't exploit Nintendo, where Nintendo could just be themselves?

That's where I'm getting at. There's no way that a perfectly equitable 50/50 distribution of control/autonomy is set up, when one company is clearly currently faltering. There's no way Microsoft would strike a deal where Nintendo's the one in a position of power. And there's no way that Nintendo would accept a deal where they weren't.

It depends. Nintendo came off the most successful console last gen so they still have power. However, unless they continue to be number one they could face the risk of exploitation in the future.

So, I think it's better they get as much leeway as possible while they can because:
1. It's new. They'll literally be the founders.
2. They have stuff to offer. Their first party can greatly complement Microsoft's lack of one.
3. Benefits. They'll be absorbing Microsoft's audience and vice versa. Getting third party support will be less of a pain.

The keyword here is avoiding a future of being left out while still having some power of your own.

Partnerships wouldn't work for Nintendo period. Just take a look at the past with Sony and Philips.

It's not the 90's anymore.

 

[Tobor]

You can already do it with psp... Right?

You can call it what you want. At the end of the day its "hey games like angry birds is selling well. Lets do our version with mario for 99 cents"

Nintendo does not want that because they want to get more money for one license and they dont want to give apple a cut. Seem to be enough business reasons for me.

Ignoring that selling games on iOS would be just one part of a larger strategy is ignoring the point.

 

[mclem]

If you can get mario for 99 dollars on ios people will not pay 60 dollars on other platforms on it. Its the best way to destroy your brand.

Uh.

I do hope you meant 'cents' for the first bit there. Although if you didn't, that's one hell of a ballsy strategy!

 

[Subhero]

Why should Nintendo care if these companies die in one year, five years, or a decade from now? Each sale they generate helps to line Nintendo's pockets, and none of them competes directly with Nintendo's own software, while helping to drive platform adoption.

Nintendo produced a system in the Wii U that is costly to manufacture and gives them seemingly no in-market, current benefits (ie. 'current' means 'over the next five years'). They likely could have produced something more powerful, sans all the custom technology and fancy streaming tech, that would have gotten them a chance at new-gen ports.

Which they should want, as they do nothing but help them. They're gravy on top of the dish that is Nintendo filled.

Fair point, but I like to assume it is exactly the other way around. Remember the "diminishing returns" mantra
We see that 3rd parties start cross-selling in all shapes and forms in order to keep up the high spec race, and since this is dangerous (three strikes, as in flops, and they're out) the core game product is being pushed to run on scalable frameworks/engines to accomodate as many devices (from PC to mobile) as possible to support the cross-sell. That investment is on their side, not on Nintendo's!
I'd assume that Nintendo is betting on just that: the market will come to them, they don't need to follow it by issuing heavy investments in terms of hardware.
All they need to do is provide the market for their platform by driving sales (easier said than done), which, as you pointed out, in their past has never been realized by 3rd party software.
So why again should they pay a heavy extra for the gravy out of their own pockets?
Chances are high imo that 3rd parties will come to Nintendo when the market/sales are in place. Scalable next-gen engines and a more similar HW architecture (compared to current gen) are lowering the barrier AND they will still have a huge cost/price advantage over their competitors AND they didn't have to spend one extra dime derailing from their strategy.
No?

 

[farnham]

Ignoring that selling games on iOS would be just one part of a larger strategy is ignoring the point.

Yeah that greater strategy is making games for other platforms and its not happening. Nintendo does not want to give other platformholders money for their software sales. With a game like mario kart wii selling 35 million or something is that so hard to understand?

Uh.

I do hope you meant 'cents' for the first bit there. Although if you didn't, that's one hell of a ballsy strategy!

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Unknown One]

It depends. Nintendo came off the most successful console last gen so they still have power. However, unless they continue to be number one they could face the risk of exploitation in the future.

So, I think it's better they get as much leeway as possible while they can because:
1. It's new. They'll literally be the founders.
2. They have stuff to offer. Their first party can greatly complements Microsoft's lack of one.
3. Benefits. They'll be absorbing Microsoft's audience and vice versa. Getting third party support will be less of a pain.

The keyword here is avoiding a future of being left out while still having some power of your own.


It's not the 90's anymore.

A partnership with Nintendo would result in one side screwing over the other. Sony and Nintendo screwed each other over and Nintendo screwed over Philips. Each side wants a huge gain. This is Nintendo, the company that leaves out DVD playback because they don't want to pay royalties for it.

 

[Littlegator]

You know, I'd hate to see Iwata go because I think he's a great guy, but I'd love to see Iwata go because his hardware philosophy is ruining Nintendo's already-tattered public image.

 

[Tookay]

It depends. Nintendo came off the most successful console last gen so they still have power. However, unless they continue to be number one they could face the risk of exploitation in the future.

So, I think it's better they get as much leeway as possible while they can because:
1. It's new. They'll literally be the founders.
2. They have stuff to offer. Their first party can greatly complements Microsoft's lack of one.
3. Benefits. They'll be absorbing Microsoft's audience and vice versa. Getting third party support will be less of a pain.

The keyword here is avoiding a future of being left out while still having some power of your own.

And, if an internet poster can see this now, so can the business minds of Microsoft. They can sense blood in the water. If Nintendo's future looks weak and they come to Microsoft in desperation, that'll be factored into the deal. It won't be equitable.

A partnership for that reason will never happen, because Nintendo only loses more control, which they won't accept. And Microsoft will only exploit that relationship, which is another reason why Nintendo wouldn't accept.

And, to be honest, there's little guarantee we as consumers would get better games out of such a deal. We've seen how cynically Microsoft has treated Rare.

 

[AZ Greg]

It is not. The jump is not as noticable as it was before and its already subject to discussion on gaf. This means that the general public will recognize the jump even less.

If you look at a good looking ps2 or xbox game and comare it to a launch 360 game like pgr3 you still recognize a jump. Even more with games like gears. Thats just not the case this time around. Especially for the untrained eye the difference will be hard to recognize.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Let's not forget that we hadn't really seen anything from the 360 at this stage relative to its launch and we still had to go through things like "Wall Guy" or "Xbox 1.5". And while I'm a huge fan of PGR3, if you're were playing in SD then it wasn't that huge of a leap. Also, GoW didn't come out until a year after launch so comparing it to early PS4 games isn't fair. And while it is strictly anectdotal, my casual friends were able to easily see the jump.

Without the 2D > 3D or SD > HD jump it will be a little harder to see noticeable gains, though. But I think this transition will be the 3D equivalent of what we saw in the 2D era when the NES transitioned to the SNES.

 

[Apophis2036]

What happens if Nintendo price cut WiiU and Pikmin 3, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Wind Waker HD, 3D Mario, Mario Kart all release in 2013 and by Jan 2014 WiiU has only sold 5 or 6 million consoles ?.

 

[airmangataosenai]

I can't help but shake my head at some of the comments. Xbox to 360 launch jump was far and away the smallest we've ever seen in a generation. Killzone even in the early form we've seen so far represents a much larger leap than something like DOAU to DOA4 or Halo 2 to PDZ.

 

[farnham]

Fair point, but I like to assume it is exactly the other way around. Remember the "diminishing returns" mantra
We see that 3rd parties start cross-selling in all shapes and forms in order to keep up the high spec race, and since this is dangerous (three strikes, as in flops, and they're out) the core game product is being pushed to run on scalable frameworks/engines to accomodate as many devices (from PC to mobile) as possible to support the cross-sell. That investment is on their side, not on Nintendo's!
I'd assume that Nintendo is betting on just that: the market will come to them, they don't need to follow it by issuing heavy investments in terms of hardware.
All they need to do is provide the market for their platform by driving sales (easier said than done), which, as you pointed out, in their past has never been realized by 3rd party software.
So why again should they pay a heavy extra for the gravy out of their own pockets?
Chances are high imo that 3rd parties will come to Nintendo when the market/sales are in place. Scalable next-gen engines and a more similar HW architecture (compared to current gen) are lowering the barrier AND they will still have a huge cost/price advantage over their competitors AND they didn't have to spend one extra dime derailing from their strategy.
No?

Makes sense. However it also makes too much sense and strategies that made sense were generally not followed in this industry

 

[farnham]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Let's not forget that we hadn't really seen anything from the 360 at this stage relative to its launch and we still had to go through things like "Wall Guy" or "Xbox 1.5". And while it is strictly anectdotal, my casual friends were able to easily see the jump.

Without the 2D > 3D or SD > HD jump it will be a little harder to see noticeable gamins. But I think this transition will be the 3D equivalent of what we saw in the 2D era when the NES transitioned to the SNES.

no that was the 32/64 bit to 128 bit transition

 

[Tobor]

Yeah that greater strategy is making games for other platforms and its not happening. Nintendo does not want to give other platformholders money for their software sales. With a game like mario kart wii selling 35 million or something is that so hard to understand?

I'm aware it won't happen, at least not under current management. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread...

 

[DonMigs85]

They could probably start making cheap companion apps or guides for their games on iOS/Android at some point, kinda like the Pokedex out now.

 

[JordanN]

And, if an internet poster can see this now, so can the business minds of Microsoft. They can sense blood in the water. If Nintendo's future looks weak and they come to Microsoft in desperation, that'll be factored into the deal. It won't be equitable.

A partnership for that reason will never happen, because Nintendo only loses more control, which they won't accept. And Microsoft will only exploit that relationship, which is another reason why Nintendo wouldn't accept.

And, to be honest, there's little guarantee we as consumers would get better games out of such a deal. We've seen how cynically Microsoft has treated Rare.

This is where bargaining comes in. If it doesn't work the first time then it doesn't work the first time. But it's better they give a shot at it while wielding the amount of influence they have now than gambling on a future where they could actually be worse off.

If Nintendo can get this deal that's all that matters and shouldn't be opposed.

 

[AZ Greg]

no that was the 32/64 bit to 128 bit transition

lol

Because 128-bit era 3D holds up just as well as SNES era 2D...

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Ignoring that selling games on iOS would be just one part of a larger strategy is ignoring the point.

But the "larger strategy" is undeniably a dangerous, and almost certainly poorly thought out one. Why ignore that? Look, you can desire to play Pokemon on your iPad. That's fine, it's really cool to want things. But in saying that, you have to understand and be open to the fact that this would be a bad thing for Nintendo in the long run.

 

[PogiJones]

This is a good example of the shortsightedness that is hurting Nintendo.

The users buying software on iOS in high volume aren't going to buy Nintendo hardware to then spend $60 on software anyway.

Besides, it wouldn't be the same investment and product. Low risk, low ROI product for the casual audience, higher risk higher ROI product for the core audience.

You tailor product to the audience and increase the size of the overall market, and enhance the value of your brand.

Having a diverse portfolio can be helpful, but it can also be harmful. For example, Sony's TVs have way too many models, and sell far less than they could because of it. Apple's products are very few, very elect, and very expensive, so people know that if they want to satisfy an Apple fix, they have to pony up the cash.

With an iOS Mario, it's possible that they could offer a smaller, cheaper product and still sell their bigger Mario titles. But it's also very possible that the availability of a smaller, cheaper Mario would be enough for people to scratch their Mario itch, and would no longer buy the bigger, more expensive versions.

I know for me, I want my son to experience Mario when he's old enough. But if I can do that for 99 cents instead of $60, of course I'll do that, because he won't know the difference for a long time, and I get to share with him my childhood character. Win - win, except Nintendo loses.

Whether the margin containing people like me is large enough to create a net loss, I don't know, but I'm guessing it is.

 

[farnham]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Let's not forget that we hadn't really seen anything from the 360 at this stage relative to its launch and we still had to go through things like "Wall Guy" or "Xbox 1.5". And while I'm a huge fan of PGR3, if you're were playing in SD then it wasn't that huge of a leap. Also, GoW didn't come out until a year after launch so comparing it to early PS4 games isn't fair. And while it is strictly anectdotal, my casual friends were able to easily see the jump.

Without the 2D > 3D or SD > HD jump it will be a little harder to see noticeable gains, though. But I think this transition will be the 3D equivalent of what we saw in the 2D era when the NES transitioned to the SNES.

And are they willing to pay 400 dollars for that jump?

I can't help but shake my head at some of the comments. Xbox to 360 launch jump was far and away the smallest we've ever seen in a generation. Killzone even in the early form we've seen so far represents a much larger leap than something like DOAU to DOA4 or Halo 2 to PDZ.

Pgr 3 looked much better than forza or Granturismo 4
Call of Duty 2 was a big leap compared to big red one.

I agree that the real jump happened a bit later with gears, oblivion or dead rising. We knew that those games existed at the time the 360 launched though

lol

Because 128-bit era 3D holds up just as well as SNES era 2D...

Well i still play a lot of ps2, gamecube, wii games and have little problems with it.

I'm aware it won't happen, at least not under current management. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread...

It will not happen under any sane management.

This is where bargaining comes in. If it doesn't work the first time then it doesn't work the first time. But it's better they give a shot at it while wielding the amount of influence they have now than gambling on a future where they could actually be worse off.

If Nintendo can get this deal that's all that matters and shouldn't be opposed.

So why not try to get into a better market position by yourself?

 

[Subhero]

Makes sense. However it also makes too much sense and strategies that made sense were generally not followed in this industry

Haha, that was the reality check I needed.
Truth hurts

 

[JordanN]

So why not try to get into a better market position by yourself?

Because Iwata already sabotaged it. The moment PS4/720 exceeds Wii U, Nintendo will be at their mercy.

They could try again the gen after that but if it doesn't sell they'll be weakened beyond repair in the future partnership.

 

[AZ Greg]

Cant wait for that tbh.

I'm not sure why so many Nintendo fans want this. I honestly think it would be unhealthy for them since they rely so much on hardware sales. A lot of their loyal base that stuck with the N64 and the GC also buy the current Nintendo handheld of the time. This would mean Nintendo would only get the hybrid purchase vs. the current model where they get the handheld hardware sale and the home console sale.

 

[popeutlal]

People are saying Wii U was released too late, I say it was released too early. They obviously couldn't get their new games in time, nor their old games...still no virtual console.

They couldn't get their dev kits in time, many developers got them late.
They couldn't get their OS ready in time, a redo will happen in spring update.

This device need another 6 months.

 

[farnham]

Because Iwata already sabotaged it. The moment PS4/720 exceeds Wii U, Nintendo will be at their mercy.

Tits not like its forbidden to buy wiius or wiius are getting recalled. And no nintendo will not be at the mercy of sony or ms if their hardware sales exceed wiius hardware sales.

 

[farnham]

People are saying Wii U was reused too late, I say it was released too early. They obviously couldn't get their new games in time, nor their old games...still no virtual console.

They couldn't get their dev kits in time, many developers got them late.
They couldn't get their OS ready in time, a redo will happen in spring update.

This device need another 6 months.

Its both really. Marketwise they needed wiiu in 2011. From an internal development standpoint the thing needed another 6 month. At the end of the day iwata did not expand enoUgh and that is hurting the comoany now

 

[Tobor]

People are saying Wii U was reused too late, I say it was released too early. They obviously couldn't get their new games in time, nor their old games...still no virtual console.

They couldn't get their dev kits in time, many developers got them late.
They couldn't get their OS ready in time, a redo will happen in spring update.

This device need another 6 months.

They were too late and too early, an impressive feat of failure.

Late, in that the successor to the Wii was 2 years late.
Early, in that the eventual successor was half baked and rushed to market.

 

[JordanN]

Tits not like its forbidden to buy wiius or wiius are getting recalled. And no nintendo will not be at the mercy of sony or ms if their hardware sales exceed wiius hardware sales.

With no installbase and no powerful hardware where's the third party support going to come? Nintendo's relevance would score a 0 which wouldn't be good for a future one platform merger.

 

[DonMigs85]

Tits not like its forbidden to buy wiius or wiius are getting recalled. And no nintendo will not be at the mercy of sony or ms if their hardware sales exceed wiius hardware sales.

Well Nintendo will likely be back to depending mainly on their first party games and a handful of 3rd party titles, much like the GameCube.
They also won't be able to rely on royalties from the massive amounts of shovelware that were on the Wii only thanks to its massive install base and clueless shoppers.

 

[JordanN]

Well Nintendo will likely be back to depending mainly on their first party games and a handful of 3rd party titles, much like the GameCube.
They also won't be able to rely on royalties from the massive amounts of shovelware that were on the Wii only thanks to its massive install base and clueless shoppers.

Gamecube had powerful hardware so the third parties would actually be less (assuming sales are similar).

That still wouldn't be good because game development has gotten longer since the Gamecube days so Nintendo will have to work extra hard to churn out games.

 

[farnham]

Well Nintendo will likely be back to depending mainly on their first party games and a handful of 3rd party titles, much like the GameCube and the wii

fixed

With no installbase and no powerful hardware where's the third party support going to come? Nintendo's relevance would score a 0 which wouldn't be good for a future one platform merger.

They have their own software. And are we still discussing that platform merger that is not going to happen?

 

[evilromero]

It's about time for new leadership anyway.

 

[JordanN]

fixed



They have their own software. And are we still discussing that platform merger that is not going to happen?

See above. Longer game development and lack of third parties = slow decline.

And once processing power is maxed out, it's hard to imagine platforms not merging (publishers complaining could be a start).

 

[mclem]

I'm not sure why so many Nintendo fans want this. I honestly think it would be unhealthy for them since they rely so much on hardware sales. A lot of their loyal base that stuck with the N64 and the GC also buy the current Nintendo handheld of the time. This would mean Nintendo would only get the hybrid purchase vs. the current model where they get the handheld hardware sale and the home console sale.

But they've got the advantage of unified development; A company would make a game, and it's up to the purchaser whether they wish to play it at home or on the move - or indeed swap as circumstances dictate. They'd miss out on home console sales, but would that be compensated for by increased software sales as any release is now capable of hitting two markets?

 

[Coolwhip]

With no installbase and no powerful hardware where's the third party support going to come? Nintendo's relevance would score a 0 which wouldn't be good for a future one platform merger.

Sigh, why do you focus so much on 3rd parties. It didnt mean shit for the Wii. Nintendo should focus completely on getting casuals to buy the Wii U and Call of Uncharted Wars does nothing for that crowd. Step 1 would be a mass market price, which is not $300+

 

[mclem]

Gamecube had powerful hardware so the third parties would actually be less (assuming sales are similar).

At some point, a third party in the next gen is going to have to make a call between two options for a game they're working on:

Go all-out on power, spend more on development, tap into PC, PS4, Durango markets
Show more restraint, spend less on development, tap into PC, PS4, Durango, Wii U, 360, PS3, maybe even Vita markets.

It strikes me that the latter option is capable of significantly higher profits if handled well. It's up to Nintendo, though, to show that the Wii U audience is *worth* making games for.

 

[Shiggy]

A platform merger would be a lose-lose situation for Nintendo. Focussing on software and accessories bundled with software would make sense though. Then they would not need to cope with issues they simply lack experience with, such as a competent OS or the newest high-spec hardware. Obviously, they would miss out on royalties; at the same time they reduce losses on hardware, reduce R&D costs, and can re-allocate their marketing budget.

Saying that their games would not sell as well as on their own platforms does not sound like a logical argument to me either. With the right marketing, they should be able to sell their games just as well (or when it comes to the current situation: just as badly).

Sigh, why do you focus so much on 3rd parties. It didnt mean shit for the Wii. Nintendo should focus completely on getting casuals to buy the Wii U and Call of Uncharted Wars does nothing for that crowd. Step 1 would be a mass market price, which is not $300+

I've seen the Wii U Premium Pack at retailers for €270, which is only €20 above the original Wii RRP. The Wii U basic pack is available for €250. The price shouldn't be the main problem anymore - the Wii was constantly sold out at that price point.

 

[Canon]

Iwata isn't the problem and you're using him as a scapegoat, as is Michael Pachter. Iwata got it right with the DS, Wii (until 2011), and recently the 3DS. It's way too early to say he got it wrong with the Wii U.

It should be fairly simple to save the Wii U. Release more and better software as soon as humanly possible, bundle NSMB U with the Premium bundle and discontinue the Basic model which nobody wants, release a first-party USB hard drive for a reasonable price, get the Virtual Console up NOW with every game, and finally market the system aggressively.

When I look at the eShop on Wii U I get mad. There's no excuse not to have 5 virtual console games a week, demos for every game, and an easier way to rate titles. This is all stuff that can be done today. Nintendo is just sitting on a gold mine. I don't think they're doomed, I just think they need to stop waiting to release software.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Sigh, why do you focus so much on 3rd parties. It didnt mean shit for the Wii. Nintendo should focus completely on getting casuals to buy the Wii U and Call of Uncharted Wars does nothing for that crowd. Step 1 would be a mass market price, which is not $300+

They tried with the release line-up. They failed. Wii U isn't Wii.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Iwata got it right with the DS, Wii (until 2011), and recently the 3DS.

Huh? 3DS is far from doing it right outside of Japan.