Support NeoGAF

[AZ Greg]

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?

What would make software sales increase though? Would the feature of being able to go from home > portable or portable > home be enough to get someone to buy a Nintendo game when they otherwise wouldn't have? The way I see it, someone who wants a portable Pokemon game will still buy it and someone who wants a home Zelda experience will still buy it. The fact that they can be either made portable or not doesn't seem like much more than a gimmick IMO.

I think the PSPs have shown us that console-like gaming on the go isn't all that big and, a lot of times, portable games offer tedious activites that would get rather boring in the home console space.

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+

The Wii was an anomoly and its craze bailed them out from looking bad regarding 3rd party relations for a 3rd straight generation. Based on what we're seeing out of the WiiU, the N64/GC are much more logical comparisons.

 

[Canon]

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

I thought it was outselling the original DS versus where it was in the same time period.

 

[mclem]

What would make software sales increase though? Would the feature of being able to go from home > portable or portable > home be enough to get someone to buy a Nintendo game when they otherwise wouldn't have? The way I see it, someone who wants a portable Pokemon game will still buy it and someone who wants a home Zelda experience will still buy it. The fact that they can be either made portable or not doesn't seem like much more than a gimmick IMO.

One game, sellable to two audiences. Someone with little interest in gaming on the move might be perfectly content playing that Pokémon on the television; someone with the TV being used by other people frequently might be just fine with that Zelda game on a handheld.

 

[JordanN]

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).

Nintendo would still get royalties if they bargained for it. There would literally be no downsides if handeld right.

I should also mention Nintendo would still have their handhelds. This could be a good move for Microsoft and Sony to bring their games to while everyone earns money (Microsoft has done this before actually).

Yeah, I think a future merger is definitely on the way.

 

[H_Prestige]

Once the Wii's "tickle me elmo" effect wore off it didn't take long for the console's sales to return to Nintendo's home console baseline, i.e. shit.

 

[AZ Greg]

One game, sellable to two audiences. Someone with little interest in gaming on the move might be perfectly content playing that Pokémon on the television; someone with the TV being used by other people frequently might be just fine with that Zelda game on a handheld.

I edited it in after so you may have missed it, but I think the PSPs have shown us that console-like experiences on the go aren't all that wanted. On the other hand, a lot of portable games off short-burst type gameplay that doesn't lend itself to longer home sessions.

 

[wsippel]

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

It's doing worse than Nintendo predicted, but it's doing a lot better than anyone else in the industry expected.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I thought it was outselling the original DS versus where it was in the same time period.

In Japan, yes. In western seas it didn't managed to repeat it's predecessor success and there's confusion if 3DS is a brand new system or a DS revision which slow down it's sales.

 

[SolidSnakex]

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.

Was this the case for their internal studios and studios working on titles that they were publishing? Because they can't even seem to get those out the door. It's still amazing that Wii Fit U, Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101 are still without dates after all being launch window titles.

 

[DonMigs85]

Actually I'm pretty sure Nintendo made a lot of money off sales of Wii shovelware, the Seal of Quality be damned

 

[wsippel]

Was this the case for their internal studios and studios working on titles that they were publishing? Because they can't even seem to get those out the door. It's still amazing that Wii Fit U, Pikmin 3 and Wonderful 101 are still without dates after all being launch window titles.

It affected everyone, including their own studios. They simply didn't have final silicon.

 

[Shiggy]

I edited it in after so you may have missed it, but I think the PSPs have shown us that console-like experiences on the go aren't all that wanted. On the other hand, a lot of portable games off short-burst type gameplay that doesn't lend itself to longer home sessions.

I think you are absolutely right here. That's why iOS and Android titles are so successful (besides being low-priced). I'm pretty tired of playing the same games over and over again and so these small, innovative titles on those platforms are really enjoyable. I'm not really into these 30-hours-long games anymore, they bore me after 10 minutes already. I noticed this once again after getting the THQ Humble Bundle.

 

[Knux-Future]

The 3DS was never..I repeat..NEVER going to match the DSs sales.

anyone who expected that is an idiot

 

[royalan]

The 3DS was never..I repeat..NEVER going to match the DSs sales.

anyone who expected that is an idiot

And even considering that it's still performing poorly and having its market eroded by touchscreen devices.

 

[Nothing1016]

And even considering that it's still performing poorly and having its market eroded by touchscreen devices.

It's sold over 30 million in less then 2 years. At this pace it should reach 90 to 100 million in 6/7 years. We haven't even factored in price cuts, Pokemon, bundles, and holiday sales. How is that performing poorly? Not up to Nintendo expectations, but by no means is that "poor"

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[CengizMan]

The 3DS was never..I repeat..NEVER going to match the DSs sales.

anyone who expected that is an idiot

Tell that the suits. It is not the gamers or the press that is putting Iwata under fire, but the investors.

In order to keep them happy, you simply cannot say that your next big product will perform worse than your previous one. People are only interested in investing, if the investment results into something with a profitable outcome. Sometimes it is for the relationships between companies or people, but most of the time it is for the money. And in order to make money (or rather not lose money), the company will have to do as good or even better, right?

That being said, I completely agree with canon a couple of posts above me.

 

[JordanN]

There's a lot of curious points made here. Iwata didn't shape Nintendo's policy regarding hardware, before him they were making similar decisions. The NES and SNES weren't the most powerful machines on the market and the N64 was a weird mashup of cutting edge tech and obsolete methods. In fact, I wasn't a big Nintendo fan when I was a kid - I just preferred the Master System, Mega Drive and Saturn, plus I was a PC Gamer so there were plenty of gaps filled. I had friends with Nintendo consoles but my first home machine was the N64 I bought in '02.

None of those consoles were like the Wii. Not even close.

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[Vinci]

Not true. There is a massive in-market, current benefit in owning their own platform. It's possible for them to sell the console at a small loss and still make more money on license fees from everyone else's software than if they had to give up all third-party license profits AND a huge amount of profit per box sale of their own games in license fees to other platform holders.

Yeah. That's not really what I was getting at. I have never argued that Nintendo should go 3rd party. My statements were meant to be imaginary box Nintendo did not produce versus the existing Wii U; i.e. what strategy I feel would have been better for them from a platform-holder's perspective compared to the one they did choose.

None of those consoles were like the Wii. Not even close.

You're right. Nintendo made far more money on the Wii than any of those systems.

 

[JordanN]

How'd you mean? As in distance from the competing hardware?

A SNES did not recycle NES or a N64 recycles SNES. And yeah, for their time they packed alot more power than Wii did in 2006.

 

[BGBW]

Nintendo big stance against power was why they even stopped publishing Nintendo Power!

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[PSGames]

I like my Wii U I really do. Despite the unpolished experience and lackluster games so far I see the potential. But Nintendo made a serious misstep focusing on the Gamepad and not an improved Wii remote 2. People loved those Wiimotes and this big gargantuan controller doesn't look nearly as user friendly in comparison. They should have focused on what made the Wii so successful and with the money saved from the gamepad made the Wii U an order of magnitude more powerful or introduced it $100 cheaper. No turning back now of course but there have been some serious missteps at Nintendo as of late.

 

[Brera]

Yeah. That's not really what I was getting at. I have never argued that Nintendo should go 3rd party. My statements were meant to be imaginary box Nintendo did not produce versus the existing Wii U; i.e. what strategy I feel would have been better for them from a platform-holder's perspective compared to the one they did choose.



You're right. Nintendo made far more money on the Wii than any of those systems.

You're right...after the NES, we were dying to give Nintendo our dollars, likewise after the SNES.

After the Wii? Fuck no!

Even though I bought a U on day 0!

 

[Vinci]

You're right...after the NES, we were dying to give Nintendo our dollars, likewise after the SNES.

After the Wii? Fuck no!

Even though I bought a U on day 0!

....

You're quite an odd fellow.

Which is fine. Odd people keep things interesting.

 

[A Black Falcon]

There's a lot of curious points made here. Iwata didn't shape Nintendo's policy regarding hardware, before him they were making similar decisions. The NES and SNES weren't the most powerful machines on the market and the N64 was a weird mashup of cutting edge tech and obsolete methods.

What? When the NES (Famicom) was released in Japan in 1983, it blew away the field in terms of graphical power, and even two years later it was still certainly the most powerful console in the US (remember, the Master System didn't release until 1985 in Japan and 1986 in the US). The NES was a very powerful system at the time of its release, and was a big leap over any other system available at the time.

As for the SNES, it has a slow CPU, but the graphical hardware -- the Mode 7 scaling layer, that you can have 256 colors on screen from a 32,000 color palette, etc -- were a big leap over anything else available. Overall, Neo-Geo aside the SNES is the most powerful system that generation, unless you count the 32X as a console from that generation. That's the only one that might beat it, though.

And the N64, it had the best hardware by far of any console that generation. So they used cartridges... so? It's still a much more powerful system than the Saturn or PS1. It was also the first console with perspective-correct polygons, which is a huge, huge advance. Z-buffering and triple buffering were nice as well.

And as for the GC, it wasn't as powerful as the Xbox, but it was close, and the system could do some very nice graphics, well above the PS2 (or DC)'s capabilities.

No, before the Wii, Nintendo always pushed hardware with their consoles -- the NES with its top-of-the-line (for 1983) power, the SNES with its graphical ability, the N64 with its best-at-the-time polygon graphics, the GC with its power and efficiency... sure, they made some decisions people disliked, like the slow SNES CPU, the small texture cache on the N64, and the small discs on the Gamecube, but they also released powerful systems that most of the time were more powerful than anything else available at the time of their release.

And then, of course, came the Wii, and Nintendo's shift in focus to less powerful systems with a hopefully broader market appeal. That worked great the first time, but this time it's not going as well...but they certainly still could catch up.

Okay and my point is that Nintendo are always trying different stuff, trying to be different. A Nintendo that attempts to go toe to toe with Microsoft and Sony isn't going to necessarily be a better Nintendo.

I also don't understand why using tried and tested hardware is a bad thing. Anything that ensures reliability has to be a plus, right?

I think a lot of people would say that one of the major reasons why Nintendo made the Wii the system that they did was because they'd tried the power thing again with the Gamecube, but it hadn't worked at all, so they decided to try something else instead. It makes sense, even if it's a little frustrating at times. (I mean, I may be a Nintendo fan, but of course I wish the Wii and Wii U were a little more powerful... but oh well, the Wii ended up as a pretty good system as it was.)

 

[grimshawish]

You're right...after the NES, we were dying to give Nintendo our dollars, likewise after the SNES.

After the Wii? Fuck no!

Even though I bought a U on day 0!

Never change Brera. Never change.

 

[D.Lo]

What? When the NES (Famicom) was released in Japan in 1983, it blew away the field in terms of graphical power, and even two years later it was still certainly the most powerful console in the US (remember, the Master System didn't release until 1985 in Japan and 1986 in the US). The NES was a very powerful system at the time of its release, and was a big leap over any other system available at the time.

As for the SNES, it has a slow CPU, but the graphical hardware -- the Mode 7 scaling layer, that you can have 256 colors on screen from a 32,000 color palette, etc -- were a big leap over anything else available. Overall, Neo-Geo aside the SNES is the most powerful system that generation, unless you count the 32X as a console from that generation. That's the only one that might beat it, though.

And the N64, it had the best hardware by far of any console that generation. So they used cartridges... so? It's still a much more powerful system than the Saturn or PS1. It was also the first console with perspective-correct polygons, which is a huge, huge advance. Z-buffering and triple buffering were nice as well.

And as for the GC, it wasn't as powerful as the Xbox, but it was close, and the system could do some very nice graphics, well above the PS2 (or DC)'s capabilities.

No, before the Wii, Nintendo always pushed hardware with their consoles -- the NES with its top-of-the-line (for 1983) power, the SNES with its graphical ability, the N64 with its best-at-the-time polygon graphics, the GC with its power and efficiency... sure, they made some decisions people disliked, like the slow SNES CPU, the small texture cache on the N64, and the small discs on the Gamecube, but they also released powerful systems that most of the time were more powerful than anything else available at the time of their release.

And then, of course, came the Wii, and Nintendo's shift in focus to less powerful systems with a hopefully broader market appeal. That worked great the first time, but this time it's not going as well...but they certainly still could catch up.

Quoted for truth.

That said, it's a bit different playing against Sega and even what was originally a small division of Sony than playing against the whole of Microsoft and Sony's resources. Nobody competing against the NES, SNES or N64 was literally willing to lose billions to dominate the living room. There were hints of this with the Gamecube - Nintendo managed to make an affordable and more powerful console than the PS2, but couldn't possibly be asked to compete with the $4billion losing Xbox.

The way I like to put it is that it's like as if the SNES had to compete against a heavily subsidised $150 Neo Geo. And that at the same time developers and consumers had all become accustomed to this financially unsustainable environment of getting all that power for cheap and expected it.

 

[Hermii]

If Iwata steps down, I hope he continioues to be an Iwata Asker and Nintendo Directer and goes back to game development. Balloon Flight 2 directed by Iwata would be awesome.

 

[Vinci]

Fair point, but I like to assume it is exactly the other way around. Remember the "diminishing returns" mantra

I'm aware of the mantra, but it's criminally over-touted.

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!

True, but... they're not working on Nintendo's platforms. At least the majority aren't. The engines may be scalable, but Nintendo has (at least on the face of it considering the Wii U's bizarre architecture and inadequate development tools) done nothing to create collaborative synergies with these companies' goals.

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.

First of all, the Wii U is heavily customized, increasing its cost of production far more than makes sense for the performance Nintendo gains relative to its upcoming rivals. I can appreciate that Nintendo enjoys making its systems to hit certain benchmarks that they appreciate, but if that continues to necessitate ostracizing themselves from the entirety of the industry's content providers, it's likely not worth it. In the min-maxing game, Nintendo has screwed up here.

Secondly, the reason Nintendo is principally responsible for driving adoption of its hardware is because it is usually the only developer worth a crap putting anything out on the systems. The heavy-hitters have avoided Nintendo platforms for well over a decade with very rare exceptions. Doing this requires that Nintendo find some middle-ground between its own goals and those of other content providers. Instead, it seems to be retreating further into its own market within the market.

Even if the Wii U is the stepping stone towards a convergence of handheld and console, and that very likely is true, it's a clumsy one. Remember, this console has to be sustainable for at least five years. Am I saying it cannot be? No. But it sure as hell left the starting line as if its legs were tied together, and its selling proposition is remarkably difficult to communicate. On its own, it's not engaging enough to garner a mass audience.

I think they would have been better off coming up with a higher-power, conservatively priced system that got closer to where the other systems are going to be. Without exotic hardware. Then take the Wii Remote, enhance it, put a Pro Controller in the box, call it 'Wii 2,' and call it a day. Their improved online network is fine; they could have kept that as it is. Take the disruptive elements of the Wii and release a sustaining system - which is sort of the natural follow-up to a disruption.

Then release the convergence device, if it's even necessary at that point. Use the fancy streaming tech R&D came up with and see if the Wii 2 offered a good enough power-to-cost ratio to improve relations with 3rd parties that could prove very useful in migrating people to your converged handheld/console.

Seriously, the only thing - the only thing - keeping Nintendo from killing every competitor in the market is its unwillingness to meet 3rd parties halfway, really trying to say, "What do you guys want from us?" and deliver even a respectable fraction of what they ask for. That's what I thought the Wii U was going to be. It's not. I don't know what it is - maybe the step towards convergence logic seems to suggest. But what sort of product are you releasing into the market if it's sole benefit is "Wait till you see our next system".

 

[Game Guru]

Quoted for truth.

That said, it's a bit different playing against Sega and even what was originally a small division of Sony than playing against the whole of Microsoft and Sony's resources. Nobody competing against the NES, SNES or N64 was literally willing to lose billions to dominate the living room. There were hints of this with the Gamecube - Nintendo managed to make an affordable and more powerful console than the PS2, but couldn't possibly be asked to compete with the $4billion losing Xbox.

The way I like to put it is that it's like as if the SNES had to compete against a heavily subsidised $150 Neo Geo. And that at the same time developers and consumers had all become accustomed to this financially unsustainable environment of getting all that power for cheap and expected it.

This is actually a good assessment. It could be said that it isn't Nintendo who is off-kilter to the typical console cycle, but that Sony and Microsoft are. Wii had 6 years on the market before being replaced by its successor, Wii U. Previous console generations had been 5 to 6 years long, and it is this particular generation that is running for 7 to 8 years. However, Microsoft began this fight for the living room risking billions to obtain that dominance, and Sony followed suit. Nintendo decided that that battle wasn't one worth fighting and pretty much tried to find their own path.

The comparison of how successful a SNES would be compared to a hypothetical subsidized Neo Geo is actually quite apt. The Neo Geo showed just how powerful a console could be in the 16-Bit era. It was hardware on par with arcade games in 1990 and it had an extended life cycle itself. Like the Neo Geo, the Super Nintendo is also hardware from 1990, but vastly weaker comparatively. How can a company like Nintendo compete with two big behemoths willing to break the bank to own the living room? Even Sony is having trouble competing with Microsoft if their current financial state is taken into consideration, while Sony had little trouble competing with Nintendo and Sega and in general matched those consoles in power and price point.

 

[mclem]

I edited it in after so you may have missed it, but I think the PSPs have shown us that console-like experiences on the go aren't all that wanted. On the other hand, a lot of portable games off short-burst type gameplay that doesn't lend itself to longer home sessions.

Absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that with the unified system there's no *need* for such a segregation; you can play a game how you wish. There's no feeling that by making the purchase you're committing yourself to one style of play.

 

[mclem]

As for the SNES, it has a slow CPU, but the graphical hardware -- the Mode 7 scaling layer, that you can have 256 colors on screen from a 32,000 color palette, etc -- were a big leap over anything else available.

There's an amusing parallel here. Admittedly, the Wii U's graphical hardware isn't a *big* leap, but it's significantly better than what's currently out there.

 

[AntMurda]

I edited it in after so you may have missed it, but I think the PSPs have shown us that console-like experiences on the go aren't all that wanted. On the other hand, a lot of portable games off short-burst type gameplay that doesn't lend itself to longer home sessions.

The problem here, like many forum memes, is that we take a small sample of data and extrapolate it to a larger body of fact. The truth is some key select SONY franchises may not have prospered as well, but then monster hunter, phantasy star portable, and god eater found huge success in Japan. Then you have Nintendo who has animal crossing, new super Mario bros, 3d Mario , and Mario kart all find success on both platforms.

The suspend feature fixes a lot of problems for lengthier adventures.

 

[michaelius]

There's an amusing parallel here. Admittedly, the Wii U's graphical hardware isn't a *big* leap, but it's significantly better than what's currently out there.

Doesn't the paralle fail because SNES was compared to competitors from same generation while Wii U compares semi-favourably aginst 7 year old machines?

 

[Turrican3]

The 3DS is certainly not the antithesis to my argument. The 3DS launch was uninspired.

Problem is, this seems a lose-lose situation for Nintendo.

They launch with their flagship titles: "there's no room left for 3rd party games!"
They launch with minor franchises: "3rd parties won't risk until there's a healthy userbase"

You have to throw some coins in the slot if you want to hit the jackpot. [...] Nintendo has to try to widen their user base, and it is going to take effort.

I see where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, I have no concrete answer for that. I mean, it's not like Nintendo hasn't tried to attract other competitor's userbase, but they generally failed miserably. See Gamecube.
Expanding their own fanbase (which is what I think they did with Wii/DS, and I believe they're still mainly aiming at) appears a more successful strategy until now, but I guess it's too early to tell.

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[SmokedMeat]

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+

It didn't matter to Wii because they were selling to an audience that doesn't normally buy videogame systems. They're not coming back and the U has no hot gimmick to draw people in, so third parties matter a lot. Without them the U's software library is going to be anemic, and U needs to draw in the core gaming audience that buys games.

 

[D.Lo]

The Gamecube era in particular was popular with 3D open world/sandbox games which needed the extra space provided by DVDs.

This got quoted throughout the gen and was bullshit then. You can use multiple discs. GTA3 was 700 Megs. And when the PSP came around with even smaller discs these same companies had no problem with 1.2GB.

And games that went over 1.5GB were either full of video or code bloat, with the possible exception of San Andreas.

Nintendo always does something different. The SNES wasn't the most powerful but the Super FX chip let them pass on the cost to those who actually bought the games.

True, even a launch game had the DSP chip, the SNES was designed with expansion via carts in mind.

The N64 was great for Nintendo-style games but realistic looking title struggled.

Goldeneye was near launch and was as 'realistic' looking than any game released in the PS1's lifetime. It was pure developer will.

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[royalan]

I'm aware of the mantra, but it's criminally over-touted.



True, but... they're not working on Nintendo's platforms. At least the majority aren't. The engines may be scalable, but Nintendo has (at least on the face of it considering the Wii U's bizarre architecture and inadequate development tools) done nothing to create collaborative synergies with these companies' goals.



First of all, the Wii U is heavily customized, increasing its cost of production far more than makes sense for the performance Nintendo gains relative to its upcoming rivals. I can appreciate that Nintendo enjoys making its systems to hit certain benchmarks that they appreciate, but if that continues to necessitate ostracizing themselves from the entirety of the industry's content providers, it's likely not worth it. In the min-maxing game, Nintendo has screwed up here.

Secondly, the reason Nintendo is principally responsible for driving adoption of its hardware is because it is usually the only developer worth a crap putting anything out on the systems. The heavy-hitters have avoided Nintendo platforms for well over a decade with very rare exceptions. Doing this requires that Nintendo find some middle-ground between its own goals and those of other content providers. Instead, it seems to be retreating further into its own market within the market.

Even if the Wii U is the stepping stone towards a convergence of handheld and console, and that very likely is true, it's a clumsy one. Remember, this console has to be sustainable for at least five years. Am I saying it cannot be? No. But it sure as hell left the starting line as if its legs were tied together, and its selling proposition is remarkably difficult to communicate. On its own, it's not engaging enough to garner a mass audience.

I think they would have been better off coming up with a higher-power, conservatively priced system that got closer to where the other systems are going to be. Without exotic hardware. Then take the Wii Remote, enhance it, put a Pro Controller in the box, call it 'Wii 2,' and call it a day. Their improved online network is fine; they could have kept that as it is. Take the disruptive elements of the Wii and release a sustaining system - which is sort of the natural follow-up to a disruption.

Then release the convergence device, if it's even necessary at that point. Use the fancy streaming tech R&D came up with and see if the Wii 2 offered a good enough power-to-cost ratio to improve relations with 3rd parties that could prove very useful in migrating people to your converged handheld/console.

Seriously, the only thing - the only thing - keeping Nintendo from killing every competitor in the market is its unwillingness to meet 3rd parties halfway, really trying to say, "What do you guys want from us?" and deliver even a respectable fraction of what they ask for. That's what I thought the Wii U was going to be. It's not. I don't know what it is - maybe the step towards convergence logic seems to suggest. But what sort of product are you releasing into the market if it's sole benefit is "Wait till you see our next system".

Post of Thread. Bravo.

 

[AZ Greg]

Absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that with the unified system there's no *need* for such a segregation; you can play a game how you wish. There's no feeling that by making the purchase you're committing yourself to one style of play.

I guess I just don't see that "benefit" causing many people to buy a game they otherwise wouldn't have just because they can now play it using their style of choice, home vs. away. I don't see it outweighing the lost money that is made on having two different pieces of hardware both selling.

The problem here, like many forum memes, is that we take a small sample of data and extrapolate it to a larger body of fact. The truth is some key select SONY franchises may not have prospered as well, but then monster hunter, phantasy star portable, and god eater found huge success in Japan. Then you have Nintendo who has animal crossing, new super Mario bros, 3d Mario , and Mario kart all find success on both platforms.

The suspend feature fixes a lot of problems for lengthier adventures.

Small sample of data? I think the success of those 3 PSP games in Japan is a better example of that then my statement about consumers not wanting a console-lite experience on the go, based on Vita sales.

 

[Gummb]

Post of Thread. Bravo.

Except that his solution is for Nintendo to not innovate at all with their hardware and more directly compete with the 2 other gaming powers. Nintendo turned away from that path for a reason.

 

[Vinci]

Except that his solution is for Nintendo to not innovate at all with their hardware and more directly compete with the 2 other gaming powers. Nintendo turned away from that path for a reason.

As opposed to what: Release a system that can't seem to find its legs in any region? They release first and show even the slightest appreciation for the goals and wants of 3rd parties, they might very well not be waiting on Rayman right now; they might very well have the definitive versions of games and really create in-roads with 3rd party developers. Also, I'm suggesting that they take what made the Wii huge in the first place and build upon it, rather than throttle it like a red-headed stepchild.

The market wasn't done with the Wii, Nintendo was. They stopped feeding their audience anything of real substance. Hell, they still have the best pointer solution in console gaming and now that's pretty much lost for good.

I mean, I don't know - do you think that the Wii U really sets them apart in any meaningful way? Does the mainstream audience care about a touchscreen? Isn't that rather passe at this point? Or Off-TV Play, a feature that basically gives people the ability to spend less time with their families and more with their games? Which runs sort of counter-intuitive to what the Wii was about.

Anyway, whether my scenario is ideal or not, the one they chose is pretty damn poor from a number of perspectives. It's taking them into direct competition with the other two whether they like it or not and it's not buying them any favors aside that.

EDIT: And I'm not saying they cannot innovate - I'm saying that innovation for innovation's sake, rather than addressing a true market need or desire, is worthless.

 

[RoombaDance]

The market wasn't done with the Wii.

Not sure about that. From what I've seen people got pretty jaded towards motion controls.

I don't agree with everything Iwata's done but I think he's a pretty smart and capable guy. What I feel Nintendo is missing is an "anti-Miyamoto". Miyamoto hasn't lost his touch, but he has no real rival that I'm aware of at the company.

The Gunpei Yokoi gap has never been filled in my opinion. Someone to make the games Miyamoto wouldn't.

 

[Yamauchi]

Can anyone explain why Nintendo's stock has risen nearly 20% in the last 3 business days? Possible Nintendo stock buyback?

 

[Vinci]

Not sure about that. From what I've seen people got pretty jaded towards motion controls.

The Wii stopped selling when Nintendo supported it a fraction of what it had before. I'm not saying people hadn't grown accustomed to it - I don't agree with 'jaded,' except perhaps on GAF - just that something leveraging the same concepts, improved, with some new features, a non-confusing name, and perhaps some chance of support from 3rd parties may have proven more beneficial than what they came up with.

 

[sfried]

The Wii stopped selling when Nintendo supported it a fraction of what it had before. I'm not saying people hadn't grown accustomed to it - I don't agree with 'jaded,' except perhaps on GAF - just that something leveraging the same concepts, improved, with some new features, a non-confusing name, and perhaps some chance of support from 3rd parties may have proven more beneficial than what they came up with.

Well, I'm not too sure. Did Wii stop selling when Skyward Sword was released?

 

[farnham]

Well, I'm not too sure. Did Wii stop selling when Skyward Sword was released?

Skyward sword was shat out in a year where nintendo had only a few major releases and pretty much marked the last big game on wii (or mario party 9 i guess)

For the casuals they had wii play motin which was hardly promoted and the wii__ title before that was wii party (which did really well btw) a year ago