Support NeoGAF

[F#A#Oo]

Anyone paying even one iota of attention will see that things have changed.

A lot.

Yeah?

How exactly?

These kinds of posts are usually my least favorite in any Nintendo thread, because they literally contribution nothing to the discussion.

Yes, we know that Nintendo has survived in the past. What you're missing is how this situation is quite a bit more dire now than it was in the past.

-The 3DS is doing great in Japan but only okay globally, due to mobile market's intrusion.

-The Wii U is posed to make the Gamecube look good.

-Both of these pillars (one performing only okay and the other doing miserably) is completely unlike previous gens where the handheld sector was reliably there both domestically and internationally to make up for whatever problems there were in the console space.

-Further, the fact that they're making 3D titles for the 3DS and expensive HD titles for a struggling system tests their teams like never before, and, while expansion has started, it was not prepared for enough in advance.

-They wasted their advantage of 6-7 years to get prepared for HD and seemed completely caught off-guard in a way that suggested a weird unawareness of what was happening in the rest of the market during the same period.

-Their "hook"/"gimmick" twice in a row has yielded no discernible market reaction. Both 3D in the 3DS and the tablet touchscreen on the Wii U have not justified their initial valuation. And, the problem with the WIi U's tablet is that it's expensive to make, putting them in a tough situation in terms of price cutting.

-Not to mention, their philosophy behind both of these "hooks" seems largely confused in comparison with their previous succcesses, especially the Wii U's. The touchscreen controller is alienating in its design/uses and completely at odds with the simple-to-understand mechanics of a motion control wand.

-Their online infrastructure (in both functionality and design) is still years behind everybody else, when connectivity is probably the most important thing to the market right now. (And before anyone comments "thank God Nintendo still focuses on single-player games and local multipIayer," let me just say that I love both of those too; however, I realize that it'd probably be good business sense to delve into full-fledged online play for their marquee titles.)

-They've been effectively shunned by the big western AAA third-parties, even losing out on a token shovelware game or two. Even the test games have dried up. They've had bad third-party support before, but this is in another league. The genres that left with them - ones that appeal to the current core market - are not being replenished.

-Further (and less importantly, but not as much as you may think) you can sense the enthusiast press' coverage of Nintendo wane in a way that is relegating Nintendo to some corner in gamers' minds, instead of a staple that it is (and should be). Their losing the long-term battle for hearts and minds in a significant way.

Uhhh you are jumping the gun a lot...I'd wait a while before passing any of these as fact. Things look bad now but there is one thing that always rings true software sells hardware and Nintendo has not released it's big I.P's yet...this generation hasn't even fully started.

Pretty much all your points talk about Nintendo in a vacuum. Nintendo launched early...we haven't had the PS4/XBOne launches...and how consumers respond to those console's...for all you know both the PS4/XBOne could do worse than even the Wii U...then what? Looking at the launch software it certainly doesn't impress...and we will still see PS3/360 games for at least another 18/24 months...

 

[Hale-XF11]

I don't care if he resigns or not. I just want to know who's responsible for not getting more western developers on board with the 3DS. I still feel like there's this huge void that hasn't been filled in yet. It's disheartening to look back and see how many western style games made it to the DS, while the 3DS gets almost none of those experiences. Maybe I'm in the minority on this, I dunno. Is the audience really not there? I guess publishers like Activision seem to think so, since we still haven't seen any COD games this gen.

 

[w1gglyjones]

Regarding tehrik's posts earlier (Which I agree are quite good), I don't think most (reasonable) detractors here are saying that Nintendo is doing nothing smart at all right now. That zero good choices of any kind are being made.

Instead, I'd compare it to the launch of the Wii and DS. During that time, of course Nintendo made some mistakes; no company of 4,000+ people goes years without making some. However, Nintendo's insights that 1) graphics were not that important any longer to the market and 2) the casual audience was much larger than Sony/MS was giving it credit for and deserved to be taken seriously were so bright, so brilliant, that any mistakes Nintendo made in that time frame were simply drowned out by the brilliance of these two profound insights.

Similarly, in today's market, Nintendo's significant lag in networking functionality is such a serious concern that any good choices they make are not that important unless and until their mistakes with networking are fully fixed. Just as many detractors of the Wii/DS refused to acknowledge how important Nintendo's insights were in that era, I think many supporters of the 3DS/Wii U are dismissing serious concerns about networking, These networking complaints are much more serious than is usually discussed; not only does Nintendo still not have a standard account system (the typical complaint), but their general network infrastructure is poor (no dedicated servers, store UIs are often awkward and difficult to navigate on 3DS), their UI doesn't effectively advertise online sales the way XBL prominently features sales on their front page; and Nintendo still has made very little attempt to cultivate first party, online focused games, whether those be casual games like Farmville or "core" games. Even many established Nintendo franchises that cry out for networking have still not implemented it, such as Mario Party.

To summarize: I feel Nintendo's relative weakness in networking is such a significant weakness that any other good things they're doing now are muted in comparison.

Can we try to quantify the affects of their poor online infrastructure before saying it is significant or otherwise?

According to NOA, about 11% of their recent 3DS software sales have been through the eShop. Even if Wii U was at ~20%, that's still only a fifth.

Considering that approximately less than a fifth of 3DS/Wii U customers are downloading digitally, how much has the lack of a proper account system hurt them? (And since software purchases are still associated with the respective NNID, they can even change this in the future).

Can we even quantify how the lack of such an "account system" has hurt 3DS and Wii U sales by some percentage, either for LTD or into the future?

I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of dedicated servers." Nintendo is hosting online games for Wii U on their own servers. Do you mean that the eShop download speed is slow?

Some Nintendo games like Luigi's Mansion and Mario Kart have online. And other games do not. Are we certain we know the impact of this?

I'm not doubting that their online services have been lagging during the Wii era, and are still lagging in some respects for the Wii U (and maybe even less for 3DS). But I'm skeptical as to this being a major causative factor in awful post-launch sales of the Wii U, or that mediocre/acceptable pace for 3DS.

 

[ArtHands]

The western supports for handhelds were never there. Sony tried initially to gather the support with call of duty and assassin's creed , but even they have given up now chasing after the support from the west.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

In a way, it's situations like these that really highlight how Nintendo's dual nature as software and hardware developer can sometimes bite them in the ass.

Nintendo the Software Developer has little experience and/or interest developing "mature", western-focused experiences like shooters. They likely wouldn't be able to do it well, and so it would make sense for them to not focus on it when they're so much better at creating other types of games. It would be like asking Square-Enix to develop a franchise to counter EA Sports franchises. Just wouldn't work.

However, Nintendo the Hardware Developer needs to realize that these gritty shooter experiences are in high demand, as well as a lot of western-focused experiences, and if they want their hardware to be competitive they need to have an answer for those types of experiences. This Nintendo needs to diminish the number of reasons gamers would have to look to their competitors for satisfaction.

A pretty tough situation to be in, I imagine, but Nintendo needs to address the fact that they don't specialize in these games by acquiring talent that does giving them the resources to create something great for Nintendo, or by bankrolling a third party into creating something great exclusively for their hardware. But they shouldn't just wash their hands of entire genres because they feel they can't compete. They have to compete.

If your favorite genre in video games is first/third person shooter and you buy exclusively Nintendo consoles, you are an uneducated and quite frankly stupid consumer.

Don't you want Nintendo to get third party support (I seem to remember seeing you parrot that talking point a lot)? A Nintendo-developed/invested shooter would hurt that. Third parties don't like to compete with Nintendo games. These two objectives (obtaining third-party support and a Nintendo-exclusive shooter) are contradictory.

 

[Burai]

Uhhh you are jumping the gun a lot...I'd wait a while before passing any of these as fact. Things look bad now but there is one thing that always rings true software sells hardware and Nintendo has not released it's big I.P's yet...this generation hasn't even fully started.

Pretty much all your points talk about Nintendo in a vacuum. Nintendo launched early...we haven't had the PS4/XBOne launches...and how consumers respond to those console's...for all you know both the PS4/XBOne could do worse than even the Wii U...then what? Looking at the launch software it certainly doesn't impress...and we will still see PS3/360 games for at least another 18/24 months...

Everything he posted was the result of years of bad planning. You can throw IP at the situation all you want, it's not going to solve Nintendo's underlying cultural problems that lead to the Wii U being such a disaster.

The Wii U isn't a mistake. It's "people don't care about online", "nobody owns an HDTV" and "we don't care about what other companies are doing" finally coming back to bite them in the ass. Errors and lack of foresight that have been 12 years in the making.

And what difference does it make if the Xbox One and PS4 bomb to Nintendo? Wii U sales don't suddenly explode just because their competitors are having a bad time.

Can we try to quantify the affects of their poor online infrastructure before saying it is significant or otherwise?

According to NOA, about 11% of their recent 3DS software sales have been through the eShop. Even if Wii U was at ~20%, that's still only a fifth.

Considering that approximately less than a fifth of 3DS/Wii U customers are downloading digitally, how much has the lack of a proper account system hurt them? (And since software purchases are still associated with the respective NNID, they can even change this in the future).

Can we even quantify how the lack of such an "account system" has hurt 3DS and Wii U sales by some percentage, either for LTD or into the future?

I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of dedicated servers." Nintendo is hosting online games for Wii U on their own servers. Do you mean that the eShop download speed is slow?

Some Nintendo games like Luigi's Mansion and Mario Kart have online. And other games do not. Are we certain we know the impact of this?

I'm not doubting that their online services have been lagging during the Wii era, and are still lagging in some respects for the Wii U (and maybe even less for 3DS). But I'm skeptical as to this being a major causative factor in awful post-launch sales of the Wii U, or that mediocre/acceptable pace for 3DS.

What came first? Chicken or egg? Do low digital sales levels justify Nintendo's online approach or are low digital sales levels caused by Nintendo's online approach?

If your favorite genre in video games is first/third person shooter and you buy exclusively Nintendo consoles, you are an uneducated and quite frankly stupid consumer.

Don't you want Nintendo to get third party support (I seem to remember seeing you parrot that talking point a lot)? A Nintendo-developed/invested shooter would hurt that. Third parties don't like to compete with Nintendo games. These two objectives (obtaining third-party support and a Nintendo-exclusive shooter) are contradictory.

The irony here is that back in the N64 era, Nintendo and Rare created the controller-optimised, cinematic, multiplayer-focused console FPS with Goldeneye 007. And they just let it go. In 2001 the kids that were playing Goldeneye and Perfect Dark took to playing Halo and Nintendo never gave them a reason to look back.

But back to your main point, that doesn't explain why third parties seem to be happy with releasing mascot platformers on a system that Nintendo has flooded with them.

 

[w1gglyjones]

What came first? Chicken or egg? Do low digital sales levels justify Nintendo's online approach or are low digital sales levels caused by Nintendo's online approach?

When you compare their digital sales as a percentage of total sales, and then compare to Sony and Microsoft, you'd have that answer. And the answer, I'm going out on a limb here, is that the percentages are fairly equal across the three.

So retail purchasers, who have less interest (than digital purchasers) in online services, as described above, still seem to be more important. And they have rejected the Wii U currently. I don't see how poor online services is that significant a factor in the Wii U's failure. I'm not saying that the criticisms of "not enough online multiplayer games" or "no unified account system" are unimportant, but I question how important they are right now, and how important they will be for the next-gen of all three consoles, to deem them that deadly to the Wii U.

 

[SolidSnakex]

What? Monster Hunter 4 is coming out exclusively on the 3DS this summer, and DQ 10 was on the Wii, and Wii U. Its only coming out on PC after a year it's been on the Wii. And I guarantee you, DQ won't show up on the PS3/PS4/Vita, or XBox 360/One anytime soon.

Yakuza 1 and 2 is the only port with no new installment coming on a Nintendo console.

I'm talking specifically about the Wii U. So, i'm not sure what your post has to do with what I mentioned.

 

[Tripon]

I'm talking specifically about the Wii U. So, i'm not sure what your post has to do with what I mentioned.

Claiming that the newest versions of these games don't exist on Nintendo consoles is what I'm annoyed at. You claimed Nintendo only got old HD ports of Yakuza, MH, and DQ. it'll be more accurate to say that Japanese 3rd party support is focused on the 3ds right now.

 

[metalslimer]

Claiming that the newest versions of these games don't exist on Nintendo consoles is what I'm annoyed at. You claimed Nintendo only got old HD ports of Yakuza, MH, and DQ. it'll be more accurate to say that Japanese 3rd party support is focused on the 3ds right now.

Besides dqx which is not nearly as popular as the regular series the newest versions are not on wiiu. And mh3 which has been on like 8 platforms by now is not a hige catch. The wiiu 3rd party situation is nothing short of n64 level disaster in japan

 

[Tripon]

Besides dqx which is not nearly as popular as the regular series the newest versions are not on wiiu. And mh3 which has been on like 8 platforms by now is not a hige catch. The wiiu 3rd party situation is nothing short of n64 level disaster in japan

This is kinda hilarious. Because you don't like the games, You don't count them in the series?

 

[Toski]

Don't you want Nintendo to get third party support (I seem to remember seeing you parrot that talking point a lot)? A Nintendo-developed/invested shooter would hurt that. Third parties don't like to compete with Nintendo games. These two objectives (obtaining third-party support and a Nintendo-exclusive shooter) are contradictory.

This is wrong. Halo doesn't keep Call of Duty from selling on the Xbox, Gran Turismo doesn't keep other racers from selling on the PlayStation. The "We can't compete with Nintendo's games" comments came from now dead developers who specialized in shovelware.

If Nintendo cares about getting the "Dudebro" market (which I think they don't want), they will have to convince third parties that those games are viable on Nintendo consoles, and that includes using Nintendo's own manpower to make them.

 

[Mario007]

This is kinda hilarious. Because you don't like the games, You don't count them in the series?

What he meant is that having DQX on Wii U isn't exactly attracting lots of gamers to buy that console as any other DQ title might.

This is wrong. Halo doesn't keep Call of Duty from selling on the Xbox, Gran Turismo doesn't keep other racers from selling on the PlayStation. The "We can't compete with Nintendo's games" comments came from now dead developers who specialized in shovelware.

If Nintendo cares about getting the "Dudebro" market (which I think they don't want), they will have to convince third parties that those games are viable on Nintendo consoles, and that includes using Nintendo's own manpower to make them.

I think it's more about the fact that not many other platformers apart from Nintendo's do sell that much so the developers just don't create these. I mean we've really had only 2 success stories when it comes to non-nintendo platformers and that was LBP and Rayman Origins (to some degree). I mean look at how little hype there is for Puppeteer despite it looking fucking amazing.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

What he meant is that having DQX on Wii U isn't exactly attracting lots of gamers to buy that console as any other DQ title might.

Duh. It's also on the Wii. Unless you want a graphical upgrade there's not really any reason to buy a Wii U for Dragon Quest X.

 

[metalslimer]

This is kinda hilarious. Because you don't like the games, You don't count them in the series?

In todays installment of not reading posts....

They are part of the series. The point is that they are useless versions of the series to the general public which iw why the wiiu is selling lik dogshit in japan

Dragon quest x on wii wasnt exactly a blockbuster either and are we really arguing the point of how completely awful jpn 3rd party support is?

 

[StevieP]

This is wrong. Halo doesn't keep Call of Duty from selling on the Xbox, Gran Turismo doesn't keep other racers from selling on the PlayStation. The "We can't compete with Nintendo's games" comments came from now dead developers who specialized in shovelware.

If Nintendo cares about getting the "Dudebro" market (which I think they don't want), they will have to convince third parties that those games are viable on Nintendo consoles, and that includes using Nintendo's own manpower to make them.

Specialized in shovelware? Citation needed

 

[Toski]

Specialized in shovelware? Citation needed

What AAA multi-plat devs have said that recently? Most of those comments were during the Gamecube days about why certain mid to low tier titles didn't get Gamecube ports. I doubt you'd see Rockstar or Bethesda say "We can't compete with Nintendo games" today.

If you have quotes, correct me so that I may be educated.

 

[Tripon]

In todays installment of not reading posts....

They are part of the series. The point is that they are useless versions of the series to the general public which iw why the wiiu is selling lik dogshit in japan

Dragon quest x on wii wasnt exactly a blockbuster either and are we really arguing the point of how completely awful jpn 3rd party support is?

Its bad, but not as bad as you are making out to be. You may not like DQ X, but the issue is that because it is an MMO, we can only guess how much revenue Square enix is making on it right now. And unlike recent failures like FFXVI or Tomb Raider, they would have announced their disappointment in it if they felt that it was.


And there still is Sonic Lost World coming out. A brand new installment of a franchise like you want. So, please understand.

 

[shinra-bansho]

However, Nintendo's insights that 1) graphics were not that important any longer to the market and 2) the casual audience was much larger than Sony/MS was giving it credit for and deserved to be taken seriously

I'd say this requires more nuance.

Graphics did not matter to the market if there's some sort of compelling functionality in lieu of an improvement to core hardware technology. And graphics did not matter as much to that segment of the market that went largely (but not entirely, SingStar, EyeToy etc.) ignored.

The Wii U is an example of how one can't put out a system without an appreciable improvement in technology and without a compelling 'hook' and expect it to sell well.

Recognising that this other market was large and lucrative was a great insight, but in the end they've failed to sustain that audience and much of it has seemingly migrated to other devices. As mentioned by someone else above, their new hook seems to diverge greatly from the Wii in somehow being both alienating and less novel. The product is really confused as to who it's meant to be targeting.

 

[Freezie KO]

This is one of the better threads on GAF. So much to reply to, so little time.

These kinds of posts are usually my least favorite in any Nintendo thread, because they literally contribution nothing to the discussion.

Yes, we know that Nintendo has survived in the past. What you're missing is how this situation is quite a bit more dire now than it was in the past.

-The 3DS is doing great in Japan but only okay globally, due to mobile market's intrusion.

-The Wii U is posed to make the Gamecube look good.

-Both of these pillars (one performing only okay and the other doing miserably) is completely unlike previous gens where the handheld sector was reliably there both domestically and internationally to make up for whatever problems there were in the console space.

-Further, the fact that they're making 3D titles for the 3DS and expensive HD titles for a struggling system tests their teams like never before, and, while expansion has started, it was not prepared for enough in advance.

-They wasted their advantage of 6-7 years to get prepared for HD and seemed completely caught off-guard in a way that suggested a weird unawareness of what was happening in the rest of the market during the same period.

-Their "hook"/"gimmick" twice in a row has yielded no discernible market reaction. Both 3D in the 3DS and the tablet touchscreen on the Wii U have not justified their initial valuation. And, the problem with the WIi U's tablet is that it's expensive to make, putting them in a tough situation in terms of price cutting.

-Not to mention, their philosophy behind both of these "hooks" seems largely confused in comparison with their previous succcesses, especially the Wii U's. The touchscreen controller is alienating in its design/uses and completely at odds with the simple-to-understand mechanics of a motion control wand.

-Their online infrastructure (in both functionality and design) is still years behind everybody else, when connectivity is probably the most important thing to the market right now. (And before anyone comments "thank God Nintendo still focuses on single-player games and local multipIayer," let me just say that I love both of those too; however, I realize that it'd probably be good business sense to delve into full-fledged online play for their marquee titles.)

-They've been effectively shunned by the big western AAA third-parties, even losing out on a token shovelware game or two. Even the test games have dried up. They've had bad third-party support before, but this is in another league. The genres that left with them - ones that appeal to the current core market - are not being replenished.

-Further (and less importantly, but not as much as you may think) you can sense the enthusiast press' coverage of Nintendo wane in a way that is relegating Nintendo to some corner in gamers' minds, instead of a staple that it is (and should be). Their losing the long-term battle for hearts and minds in a significant way.

Tony the Tiger says Great Post.

Don't you want Nintendo to get third party support (I seem to remember seeing you parrot that talking point a lot)? A Nintendo-developed/invested shooter would hurt that. Third parties don't like to compete with Nintendo games. These two objectives (obtaining third-party support and a Nintendo-exclusive shooter) are contradictory.

This just isn't how the market works. You have it completely backwards. A first-party game doesn't chase away third-parties. It builds the market and the demographics for them.

When Microsoft made a first-party Halo and grabbed Gears of War exclusive, they got all the shooters because they fostered a profitable environment for that type of game.

When Wii hit it big with Wii Sports, what types of games did you see? You saw Deca Sports and Midway Minigames and Rabbids and Carnival Games. Wii Sports didn't give third-parties a huge open market for FPS games and RPGs. It built a massive audience who have already shown a proclivity towards buying that type of content.

Nintendo needs to foster diversity from internal first-parties, or the only safe bets for third-parties will be mascot platformers. No coincidence they got the Sonic deal. This has nothing to do with Japan, and everything to do with the fact that it's the one thing that Nintendo has built a market for on Wii U.

This isn't limited to games. This is for any market. If you go to Whole Foods, you're going to see a lot of organic and natural foods competing with each other. You're not going to see a lot of sugary sodas. Why? Because Whole Foods (the platform) fostered a specific demographic for a specific type of product.

 

[metalslimer]

Its bad, but not as bad as you are making out to be. You may not like DQ X, but the issue is that because it is an MMO, we can only guess how much revenue Square enix is making on it right now. And unlike recent failures like FFXVI or Tomb Raider, they would have announced their disappointment in it if they felt that it was.


And there still is Sonic Lost World coming out. A brand new installment of a franchise like you want. So, please understand.

Its not even about how much it makes square. The game completely failed to generate interest in wiiu. It was essentially worthless for wiiu in japan so I hope nintendo didnt pay too much.
Mh3u sold decently but console mh is not why that series is popular. Sonic is also irrelevant in japan but is a japanese game. Regardless no matter how you spjn it japanese support is god awful

 

[royalan]

This just isn't how the market works. You have it completely backwards. A first-party game doesn't chase away third-parties. It builds the market and the demographics for them.

When Microsoft made a first-party Halo and grabbed Gears of War exclusive, they got all the shooters because they fostered a profitable environment for that type of game.

When Wii hit it big with Wii Sports, what types of games did you see? You saw Deca Sports and Midway Minigames and Rabbids and Carnival Games. Wii Sports didn't give third-parties a huge open market for FPS games and RPGs. It built a massive audience who have already shown a proclivity towards buying that type of content.

Nintendo needs to foster diversity from internal first-parties, or the only safe bets for third-parties will be mascot platformers. No coincidence they got the Sonic deal. This has nothing to do with Japan, and everything to do with the fact that it's the one thing that Nintendo has built a market for on Wii U.

This isn't limited to games. This is for any market. If you go to Whole Foods, you're going to see a lot of organic and natural foods competing with each other. You're not going to see a lot of sugary sodas. Why? Because Whole Foods (the platform) fostered a specific demographic for a specific type of product.

This guy. This guy gets it.

 

[Giygas AF]

One could argue that even though Nintendo is struggling they are still controlling market trends. After Wii both Sony and Microsoft jumped to create motion gaming. And after Wii U, all you heard about at E3 was tablet use in games, that functuioned alot like the game pad. The industry trusts Nintendo enough to follow it off the cliff I suppose.

 

[royalan]

One could argue that even though Nintendo is struggling they are still controlling market trends. After Wii both Sony and Microsoft jumped to create motion gaming. And after Wii U, all you heard about at E3 was tablet use in games, that functuioned alot like the game pad. The industry trusts Nintendo enough to follow it off the cliff I suppose.

I wouldn't say that the gamepad is an example of Nintendo controlling trends. Both MS and Sony have implemented second screen functionality at a pretty much throwaway level. Neither have made it a pillar of their systems.

 

[IrishNinja]

This guy. This guy gets it.

eh, to a degree...but it's a pretty vast oversimplification/misrepresentation of how 3rd party software & the wii went

I wouldn't say that the gamepad is an example of Nintendo controlling trends. Both MS and Sony have implemented second screen functionality at a pretty much throwaway level. Neither have made it a pillar of their systems.

could've made much the same argument with motion controls, particularly in sony's position last gen, too

 

[shinra-bansho]

One could argue that even though Nintendo is struggling they are still controlling market trends. After Wii both Sony and Microsoft jumped to create motion gaming. And after Wii U, all you heard about at E3 was tablet use in games, that functuioned alot like the game pad. The industry trusts Nintendo enough to follow it off the cliff I suppose.

The idea that Nintendo and the Wii U, and not the billions of smart devices out in the wild, is what has steered the industry towards peripheral tablet functionality is laughable. Nintendo were steered, they didn't do the steering.

 

[teacupcopter]

Part of it is just Nintendo is just so, so slow to catch up with anything. Online, trends towards HD, trends towards the portable market, gimmicks... you can argue as much as you want but the proof is in the sales.

On a personal level... it's sad, I used to be the biggest Nintendo fan until a few years into the GameCube's cycle. I had like every Game Boy (GB, Pocket, Colour, Advance, Advance SP, DS, DS Lite) and I bought a 3DS out of some sort of... I dunno, loyalty? I never play it. Maybe it's just I've grown up but the umpteenth Pokemon title doesn't interest me, Mario 3D is OK, Mario Kart is fun and all but... I don't portable game on it. You know what I bring on my transport? The thing that holds my emails, my calendars, facebook, the thing I can take photos on, make calls and texts and go online on. It's my phone. Literally the only thing the 3DS does better is the control schemes and all that has meant for me on a personal level is I've chosen games where that doesn't matter (RPGs for example or puzzle games)

It's easier, cheaper and way less bulky for me to phone game instead of 3DS or Vita game.

As for consoles, I never played the Wii I bought aside from a few games early on. I don't even know how Nintendo got themselves into a place where someone like me doesn't give a shit about Zelda, but they managed to achieve this. This from someone who literally bought every magazine with the world ZELDA on it for the 12 months leading up to Ocarina's release. I bought every N64, Game Boy, GBA, DS and Gamecube Zelda game I could find. Loved twilight princess as a launch title but by the time Skyward Sword came around... just couldn't be bothered. The lacklustre reviews didn't help either.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda

Sales back me up with the it being almost the lowest selling Zelda title in history - only a couple of the handheld titles have outsold it. Twilight Princess sold almost 6 million copies on Wii alone, with Skyward sword selling 3.5 Great anyway but a clear drop off in interest nonetheless.

Anyway I'm waffling, this is just the examples shown in the games. things like their online system, poor HD adoption (seriously what the fuck is the new Mario game), the awful touchscreen on the Wii U. People don't want it.

I'd really love for Nintendo to turn it around but I just don't see it anytime soon.

 

[Kurtofan]

The idea that Nintendo and the Wii U, and not the billions of smart devices out in the wild, is what has steered the industry towards peripheral tablet functionality is laughable. Nintendo were steered, they didn't do the steering.

Who before Nintendo mixed tablets and home consoles? Off tv play?

 

[SenatorBot]

PSP remote play in 2006?

 

[pelican]

Cerny designed the Vita. It's the support Kaz lacked in. So that is his fault. They aren't losing money on it. It has been consistently selling better (and more games per unit) than the Wii U has.

Eh, I'm sure Mark Cerney didn't design the Vita. Wasn't the designer Japanese?

I'll double check later.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Who before Nintendo mixed tablets and home consoles? Off tv play?

Its not even just a case of mixing home consoles and tablets, its a case of whoever created PC websites and things that interacted with game data. Things such as Battlenet, Bungie's Halo tracking, or even things like Fables Casino XBLA game that plugged in. Tablets are computing devices as well, so putting that stuff onto a portable anywhere environment was a step that was ALWAYS coming, regardless of Nintendo's half-effort with the gamepad.

On the other side of the coin with "off tv play" we called that Remote Play with the PSP, and its successor is coming with PS4 and Vita operations.

Nintendo didn't innovate anything at all here. They bought a good wifi lagless technology to facilitate their solution, but even still theyre behind simply due to the mass market penetration of Apple and Android tablet devices that can do all this shit anywhere away from the living room.

I gave Iwata shit earlier for not investing in the right future tech, but with Tekada becoming defacto head of R&D, I wonder where he's going to focus next after totally fucking up the WiiU's internals. It was during the Gamecubes beached whale failing times that Nintendo was aquiring the motion control tech required that would make the Wii a big new thing. Not seeing any movements like that from them at all these days.

 

[pelican]

Who before Nintendo mixed tablets and home consoles? Off tv play?

One problem is the feature isn't supported.

Either a developer ignores the Gamepad functionality and includes off screen play, or justifies the Wii U version by fundamentally including the Gamepad screen into he game design. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Sendou]

PSP remote play in 2006?

Wii U is basically this idea perfected.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Wii U is basically this idea perfected.

Well, apart from the "only one gamepad at a time" aspect of it. Pretty funny how deathly silent all the two gamepad support "coming down the line" hype went when it became clear Nintendo was having trouble getting people to buy just one of this concrete ball and chain.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Who before Nintendo mixed tablets and home consoles? Off tv play?

Firstly, "off-TV play" isn't novel.

Secondly, no one cares that Nintendo is mixing tablets and home consoles; the market has made that abundantly clear.

Sony and Microsoft's tablet integration is driven by trends outside of the console space, namely the rise of the iDevice and Android devices.

And regardless of whether the Upad is in part intended to replicate the NDS in home console form, it is also reactionary to the current market climate which has seen smart device gaming grow into a billion dollar segment of the industry while stealing away potential consumers, in particular those that Nintendo targets with its broad tent approach to demographics. Again, one would be incredibly credulous to believe that it wasn't in part a response to such.

Crowing "innovation" doesn't make the Wii U's paltry 8K units a week in the US an industry trend setter.

 

[Sendou]

Well, apart from the "only one gamepad at a time" aspect of it. Pretty funny how deathly silent all the two gamepad support "coming down the line" hype went when it became clear Nintendo was having trouble getting people to buy just one of this concrete ball and chain.

They're still developing it and games for it too. I guess it makes more sense when GamePad manufacturing costs are lower and they can sell it separately without 100 dollars price tag.

I'm excited for the possibilities of having two GamePad multiplayer personally.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Wii U is basically this idea perfected.

And yet unfortunately there's been no game even half as appealing as Four Swords. Why they didn't go with this as opposed to a Wind Waker remake is beyond me. Would have been easy to do, would have shown off the Wii U's feature

 

[JoeM86]

Part of it is just Nintendo is just so, so slow to catch up with anything. Online, trends towards HD, trends towards the portable market, gimmicks... you can argue as much as you want but the proof is in the sales.

On a personal level... it's sad, I used to be the biggest Nintendo fan until a few years into the GameCube's cycle. I had like every Game Boy (GB, Pocket, Colour, Advance, Advance SP, DS, DS Lite) and I bought a 3DS out of some sort of... I dunno, loyalty? I never play it. Maybe it's just I've grown up but the umpteenth Pokemon title doesn't interest me, Mario 3D is OK, Mario Kart is fun and all but... I don't portable game on it. You know what I bring on my transport? The thing that holds my emails, my calendars, facebook, the thing I can take photos on, make calls and texts and go online on. It's my phone. Literally the only thing the 3DS does better is the control schemes and all that has meant for me on a personal level is I've chosen games where that doesn't matter (RPGs for example or puzzle games)

It's easier, cheaper and way less bulky for me to phone game instead of 3DS or Vita game.

As for consoles, I never played the Wii I bought aside from a few games early on. I don't even know how Nintendo got themselves into a place where someone like me doesn't give a shit about Zelda, but they managed to achieve this. This from someone who literally bought every magazine with the world ZELDA on it for the 12 months leading up to Ocarina's release. I bought every N64, Game Boy, GBA, DS and Gamecube Zelda game I could find. Loved twilight princess as a launch title but by the time Skyward Sword came around... just couldn't be bothered. The lacklustre reviews didn't help either.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda

Sales back me up with the it being almost the lowest selling Zelda title in history - only a couple of the handheld titles have outsold it. Twilight Princess sold almost 6 million copies on Wii alone, with Skyward sword selling 3.5 Great anyway but a clear drop off in interest nonetheless.

Anyway I'm waffling, this is just the examples shown in the games. things like their online system, poor HD adoption (seriously what the fuck is the new Mario game), the awful touchscreen on the Wii U. People don't want it.

I'd really love for Nintendo to turn it around but I just don't see it anytime soon.

Those Skyward Sword sales are out of date. It was 3.52m after 4 months on sale (end of March 2012). All we know right now is that it has sold less than 10m. The fact it was Motion Plus only hurt its sales though.

It also didn't receive "lackluster reviews". The vast majority of them were overwhelmingly positive. Only 1up and Gamespot gave it "lackluster" ones, and Gamespot's was a joke because the reviewer just wasn't controlling it properly.

It's also somewhat illogical to use a Wii game, released very late in the Wiis life, as an example of why the Wii U is failing.

Also, what is wrong with the new Mario game? It looks brilliant. What did you expect with it being HD? Mario games are cartoony, they're not going to suddenly become hyper realistic because it's not in HD

 

[Toski]

I gave Iwata shit earlier for not investing in the right future tech, but with Tekada becoming defacto head of R&D, I wonder where he's going to focus next after totally fucking up the WiiU's internals. It was during the Gamecubes beached whale failing times that Nintendo was aquiring the motion control tech required that would make the Wii a big new thing. Not seeing any movements like that from them at all these days.

What Nintendo does in the future depends on if the PS4 or Xbone sell strong out the gate and continue to sell. If they both surpass the Wii U sales by "a sizable amount" 18 months after they launch, Nintendo really has to think about what they want out of the home console business. If Nintendo doesn't want to appeal to the Western core gamer who primarily buys home consoles, a handheld/hybrid phone future is in the works. I think Nintendo has enough clout to partner with Google to come up with a custom Android OS which will allow Google Play, but keep Nintendo games exclusive.

 

[JoeM86]

What Nintendo does in the future depends on if the PS4 or Xbone sell strong out the gate and continue to sell. If they both surpass the Wii U sales by "a sizable amount" 18 months after they launch, Nintendo really has to think about what they want out of the home console business. If Nintendo doesn't want to appeal to the Western core gamer who primarily buys home consoles, a handheld/hybrid phone future is in the works. I think Nintendo has enough clout to partner with Google to come up with a custom Android OS which will allow Google Play, but keep Nintendo games exclusive.

I don't see that happening. Nintendo's portable division is doing fine. The 3DS is selling well. Not amazingly in the west, but it's still selling well. It's by no means failing and they wouldn't cannibalise their own stuff by making a handheld/phone hybrid, especially after both Nokia and Sony failed in doing so

 

[Toski]

I don't see that happening. Nintendo's portable division is doing fine. The 3DS is selling well. Not amazingly in the west, but it's still selling well. It's by no means failing and they wouldn't cannibalise their own stuff by making a handheld/phone hybrid, especially after both Nokia and Sony failed in doing so

The handheld hybrid phone is the successor to the 3DS, not something to be sold along side it. I would be very interested in a Nintendo phone with a flip down controller w/ SNES or 3DS functionality. Nintendo's expertise in handhelds could lead to the first successful "gaming phone" which would suit Nintendo's current business goals very nicely I think.

 

[JoeM86]

The handheld hybrid phone is the successor to the 3DS, not something to be sold along side it. I would be very interested in a Nintendo phone with a flip down controller w/ SNES or 3DS functionality. Nintendo's expertise in handhelds could lead to the first successful "gaming phone" which would suit Nintendo's current business goals very nicely I think.

That would be horrific. It would quite possibly kill Nintendo if they were to do that. It wouldn't sell. People wouldn't trade in their iPhones/Galaxy phones for a Nintendo phone. This is precisely why the Sony and Nokia attempts failed

 

[Steve Youngblood]

They're still developing it and games for it too. I guess it makes more sense when GamePad manufacturing costs are lower and they can sell it separately without 100 dollars price tag.

I'm excited for the possibilities of having two GamePad multiplayer personally.

Has there been any recent official word at all about their plans to support multiple GamePads?

 

[Toski]

That would be horrific. It would quite possibly kill Nintendo if they were to do that. It wouldn't sell. People wouldn't trade in their iPhones/Galaxy phones for a Nintendo phone. This is precisely why the Sony and Nokia attempts failed

With Nokia, are you talking about the N-Gage? That thing was a laughing stock before it was produced. I have a Galaxy S4 and I would never game on it, due to lack of real buttons.

Nintendo/Iwata bet on motion controls for the Wii, alienating some of their long-term fans for greater mass appeal. Your "That would be horrific" comment reminded me of when I first saw the "Revoultion" and the 360 controller started looking damn fine. I think it a risk Nintendo should consider if the Wii U gets eclipsed by Sony and/or MS.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Has there been any recent official word at all about their plans to support multiple GamePads?

They barely announced significant support beyond early 2014 for the console itself... let alone any support for 2 Gamepads.

I'm honestly very worried about 2014 for the WiiU. 2013 looks to have quite a lot of games for it, even from 3rd parties (well mainly Ubisoft and WB), but 2014 might end up very very dry.
I feared that Nintendo will repeat the release wave structure of the Wii again, and all signs are pointing to that shite repeating itself with WiiU again.

 

[ASIS]

This just isn't how the market works. You have it completely backwards. A first-party game doesn't chase away third-parties. It builds the market and the demographics for them.

When Microsoft made a first-party Halo and grabbed Gears of War exclusive, they got all the shooters because they fostered a profitable environment for that type of game.

When Wii hit it big with Wii Sports, what types of games did you see? You saw Deca Sports and Midway Minigames and Rabbids and Carnival Games. Wii Sports didn't give third-parties a huge open market for FPS games and RPGs. It built a massive audience who have already shown a proclivity towards buying that type of content.

Nintendo needs to foster diversity from internal first-parties, or the only safe bets for third-parties will be mascot platformers. No coincidence they got the Sonic deal. This has nothing to do with Japan, and everything to do with the fact that it's the one thing that Nintendo has built a market for on Wii U.

This isn't limited to games. This is for any market. If you go to Whole Foods, you're going to see a lot of organic and natural foods competing with each other. You're not going to see a lot of sugary sodas. Why? Because Whole Foods (the platform) fostered a specific demographic for a specific type of product.

This is absolutely not what happens in the gaming industry. What would you say about the PS1? When Sony was focusing on creating a Mascot akin to Mario? Why was their direction geared to Crash but their classics ended up being Final Fantasy and Metal Gear? With the Wii, Nintendo released two killer apps during launch, Wii sports, and The legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. How come everyone "suddenly" started flocking towards Wii Sports but willfully forgetting about the other behemoth in the room? Numbers also supports my claim, in the first year Wii saw a number of "mature" themed titles selling above a million, including third parties, while casual games were sent by the droves only to be flops one after the other with very few exceptions. The fact that third parties saw the Wii as a cash cow and not a viable system has very little to do with Wii sports, and everything to do with Third Parties' approach to the system. MS also grabbed support from Japanese developers, fostering an RPG environment with Blue Dragon, Lost odyssey, and gaining support from Square Enix with FFXIII, how well did that turn out?

My point is, Developers have had chances to create their own market within the console space (see WRPGS on PS3), and they do just that on every system released so far. What Nintendo has a problem with is the relationship with said developers, not the market. They don't listen to their needs for a console, they don't even acknowledge their existence unless it is convenient for them. The result is obvious, exploit whatever they can from Nintendo platforms as lazily as possible while putting their best efforts else where. It has very little to do with Mario or Zelda or Metroid, after all Pokemon didn't suddenly turn the handheld market into a local multiplayer competitive platform, even if it's one of the best selling titles 3 generations in a row now.

 

[chaosblade]

This just isn't how the market works. You have it completely backwards. A first-party game doesn't chase away third-parties. It builds the market and the demographics for them.

When Microsoft made a first-party Halo and grabbed Gears of War exclusive, they got all the shooters because they fostered a profitable environment for that type of game.

When Wii hit it big with Wii Sports, what types of games did you see? You saw Deca Sports and Midway Minigames and Rabbids and Carnival Games. Wii Sports didn't give third-parties a huge open market for FPS games and RPGs. It built a massive audience who have already shown a proclivity towards buying that type of content.

Nintendo needs to foster diversity from internal first-parties, or the only safe bets for third-parties will be mascot platformers. No coincidence they got the Sonic deal. This has nothing to do with Japan, and everything to do with the fact that it's the one thing that Nintendo has built a market for on Wii U.

This isn't limited to games. This is for any market. If you go to Whole Foods, you're going to see a lot of organic and natural foods competing with each other. You're not going to see a lot of sugary sodas. Why? Because Whole Foods (the platform) fostered a specific demographic for a specific type of product.

This should be what the purpose of their "strategic partnerships" are, to make the sort of games that Nintendo doesn't in-house.

This is absolutely not what happens in the gaming industry. What would you say about the PS1? When Sony was focusing on creating a Mascot akin to Mario? Why was their direction geared to Crash but their classics ended up being Final Fantasy and Metal Gear? With the Wii, Nintendo released two killer apps during launch, Wii sports, and The legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. How come everyone "suddenly" started flocking towards Wii Sports but willfully forgetting about the other behemoth in the room? Numbers also supports my claim, in the first year Wii saw a number of "mature" themed titles selling above a million, including third parties, while casual games were sent by the droves only to be flops one after the other with very few exceptions. The fact that third parties saw the Wii as a cash cow and not a viable system has very little to do with Wii sports, and everything to do with Third Parties' approach to the system. MS also grabbed support from Japanese developers, fostering an RPG environment with Blue Dragon, Lost odyssey, and gaining support from Square Enix with FFXIII, how well did that turn out?

My point is, Developers have had chances to create their own market within the console space (see WRPGS on PS3), and they do just that on every system released so far. What Nintendo has a problem with is the relationship with said developers, not the market. They don't listen to their needs for a console, they don't even acknowledge their existence unless it is convenient for them. The result is obvious, exploit whatever they can from Nintendo platforms as lazily as possible while putting their best efforts else where. It has very little to do with Mario or Zelda or Metroid, after all Pokemon didn't suddenly turn the handheld market into a local multiplayer competitive platform, even if it's one of the best selling titles 3 generations in a row now.

You're looking at this like it's a black and white situation, it's not. The PS1 is not exactly comparable because it was absolutely dominant worldwide while the other systems that generation were less popular, and popularity varied a lot by region.

You mention things like Microsoft working to get those JRPGs. The entire reason they did that was to try to foster that market and improve their position in Japan. It wasn't just a spur of the moment thing to say "hey, we'll work out exclusivity deals because we feel generous today." It didn't work because gamers didn't buy into it, but that was the goal.

Nintendo definitely seems to have issues listening to third parties, which is kind of baffling, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors involved too.

 

[Toski]

This is absolutely not what happens in the gaming industry. What would you say about the PS1? When Sony was focusing on creating a Mascot akin to Mario? Why was their direction geared to Crash but their classics ended up being Final Fantasy and Metal Gear? With the Wii, Nintendo released two killer apps during launch, Wii sports, and The legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. How come everyone "suddenly" started flocking towards Wii Sports but willfully forgetting about the other behemoth in the room? Numbers also supports my claim, in the first year Wii saw a number of "mature" themed titles selling above a million, including third parties, while casual games were sent by the droves only to be flops one after the other with very few exceptions. The fact that third parties saw the Wii as a cash cow and not a viable system has very little to do with Wii sports, and everything to do with Third Parties' approach to the system. MS also grabbed support from Japanese developers, fostering an RPG environment with Blue Dragon, Lost odyssey, and gaining support from Square Enix with FFXIII, how well did that turn out?

My point is, Developers have had chances to create their own market within the console space (see WRPGS on PS3), and they do just that on every system released so far. What Nintendo has a problem with is the relationship with said developers, not the market. They don't listen to their needs for a console, they don't even acknowledge their existence unless it is convenient for them. The result is obvious, exploit whatever they can from Nintendo platforms as lazily as possible while putting their best efforts else where. It has very little to do with Mario or Zelda or Metroid, after all Pokemon didn't suddenly turn the handheld market into a local multiplayer competitive platform, even if it's one of the best selling titles 3 generations in a row now.

Do you know why the Wii got "test games"? Its because the likes of EA didn't trust the Wii userbase to buy a built from the ground up AAA game for the Wii. Where is Nintendo's Killzone or Uncharted or The Last of Us? Killzone was made in response to Halo and Uncharted was (somewhat) made in response to Gears of War. The fact is third parties don't have faith in Nintendo in building userbases for their games; this is why EA has pulled out. EA doesn't want to put Battlefield 4 on the Wii U unless Nintendo: 1.) Makes a game using their own money and manpower to "sow the seeds" for Battlefield to flourish or 2.) Pay for the port.

Nintendo may be working on these titles, but they haven't shown them yet. If they aren't working or funding CoD/Battlefield types of games, then they are telling (primarily) EA that they won't invest in that demographic, and EA is smart to stay away.

 

[ASIS]

This should be what the purpose of their "strategic partnerships" are, to make the sort of games that Nintendo doesn't in-house.




You're looking at this like it's a black and white situation, it's not. The PS1 is not exactly comparable because it was absolutely dominant worldwide while the other systems that generation were less popular, and popularity varied a lot by region.

You mention things like Microsoft working to get those JRPGs. The entire reason they did that was to try to foster that market and improve their position in Japan. It wasn't just a spur of the moment thing to say "hey, we'll work out exclusivity deals because we feel generous today." It didn't work because gamers didn't buy into it, but that was the goal.

Nintendo definitely seems to have issues listening to third parties, which is kind of baffling, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors involved too.

That's what I'm saying though, Third parties don't look at first partied and follow their footsteps, it's mostly the other way around anyway. You say PS1 dominated, but SNES was dominant and it's popular genres were beat-em-ups, fighters, and platformers. The only constant between these consoles is that Nintendo's console are designed for Nintendo first, and everyone second, while Sony and others are designing the console for everyone.

I mentioned MS because it is an obvious example how first parties don't always have the say of their markets. Third parties were attracted to other consoles, and that's where they went. Despite efforts on MS's part.

Of course Nintendo's franchise are influential, hell they even influence titles generations after they launched. I'm not disputing that, I'm saying it's not a reason for developers to back off or constrain them of their visions. There are other reasons, more important reasons.

Do you know why the Wii got "test games"? Its because the likes of EA didn't trust the Wii userbase to buy a built from the ground up AAA game for the Wii. Where is Nintendo's Killzone or Uncharted or The Last of Us? Killzone was made in response to Halo and Uncharted was (somewhat) made in response to Gears of War. Wii.The fact is third parties don't have faith in Nintendo in building userbases for their games; this is why EA has pulled out. EA doesn't want to put Battlefield 4 on the Wii U unless Nintendo: 1.) Makes a game using their own money and manpower to "sow the seeds" for Battlefield to flourish or 2.) Pay for the port.

Nintendo may be working on these titles, but they haven't shown them yet. If they aren't working or funding CoD/Battlefield types of games, then they are telling (primarily) EA that they won't invest in that demographic, and EA is smart to stay away.

The Wii had RE4, TP, Metroid Prime, and Red Steel during it's first year, all of them were million sellers, Madden was also a huge hit on the Wii. The "test games" succeeded, only to be followed with more "test games" until they failed.

 

[TunaLover]

Here is my main issue with Nintendo as I see it- I think I fall on the side that thinks chasing the western shooter crowd is a lost cause and would largely be a waste of money. If I was in charge of Nintendo, I would double down on my strengths- both in first party development and my relationships with Japanese companies. I think that is what Nintendo is going for

The issue?

I see little evidence right now that Nintendo is actually accomplishing this goal (home console wise)

Wii U first party output is anemic, and frankly, for launch and 2013 does not look terribly ambitious.

Outside of a few collaborations, Japanese 3rd party support is non existent.

If you are essentially conceding a market, you have to make up for it in another area. Right now I'm not seeing either an increased 1st party presence or strong Japanese support to make up for it. IF Iwata/Nintendo was very aggressive I think there would be an opportunity to really expand Japanese development- but right now I see no signs they are doing what they need to do.

This, Nintendo has showed before they have the power to make japanese 3rd parties jump in, their relationship with western developers isnt near that close, I think they should focus on japanese publishers and do what they did with MH, try to make popular these franchises in the west, and build more partnerships with companies like Mistwalker. But as you say, Nintendo isnt really showing being behind this strategy anymore, they are relying on Mario and Zelda to do the Job, but it only have a short term effect, and dont secure platform healthy long term.

In my opinion "making japanese development big again" should be Nintendos motto, competente is focused in western markets, so thats a viable blue ocean there.