Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

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.

That's where creating new IPs come in handy,

It doesn't matter that Twilight Princess is technically a mature, AAA game. It was from a longstanding Nintendo franchise. That game selling only PROVES that people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo franchises. Want to send the message to developers that there's an audience for a certain type of experience on your hardware, and not just specific franchises? You do it with new IP.

Funny thing is Nintendo KNOWS that. That's why they created the Wii_________ line of games to sell the sell the Wii's features, and didn't just slap on Mario like they always do.

 

[metalslimer]

Nintendo has shown they barely care about supporting the gamepad let alone 2

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I was kinda expecting either 3D Mario or Retro's game at E3 to show some great usage of the Gamepad to help justify the focus on it/the expense of producing it

and we got a DKC you can just as easily play with a controller and multiplayer 3D Mario built to accommodate Wiimote/D-pad users

but hey, off-tv play right

 

[Interceptor]

I was kinda expecting either 3D Mario or Retro's game at E3 to show some great usage of the Gamepad to help justify the focus on it/the expense of producing it

and we got a DKC you can just as easily play with a controller and multiplayer 3D Mario built to accommodate Wiimote/D-pad users

but hey, off-tv play right

Right.

 

[ASIS]

That's where creating new IPs come in handy,

It doesn't matter that Twilight Princess is technically a mature, AAA game. It was from a longstanding Nintendo franchise. That game selling only PROVES that people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo franchises. Want to send the message to developers that there's an audience for a certain type of experience on your hardware, and not just specific franchises? You do it with new IP.

Funny thing is Nintendo KNOWS that. That's why they created the Wii_________ line of games to sell the sell the Wii's features, and didn't just slap on Mario like they always do.

Perhaps, but then again TP had an effect on the thematic titles of the first year none the less. 3rd Parties still didn't capitalize on the opportunity

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

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.

So am I, but I'm also worried it'll end up suffering the same fate as motion plus did on Wii.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

I'm pretty sure companies which sell products (ie third party video games in your analogy) at Whole Foods would prefer that Whole Foods not sell their own products (ie Nintendo games) in the store if they compete with one another, especially if the latter consistently sell more than the former.

What you're talking about is creating an environment in which shooters can be successful on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo developing/funding their own exclusive shooter is not a pre-requisite to this and is probably detrimental to the end goal of attracting third parties. There are other methods to do so (although frankly I wouldn't even bother with it if I were Nintendo outside of maybe having Call of Duty on there - focus on the market that your competitors aren't focusing on instead)

Perhaps, but then again TP had an effect on the thematic titles of the first year none the less. 3rd Parties still didn't capitalize on the opportunity

Some did, especially Ubisoft - Red Steel sold a million copies despite being a pretty unremarkable game which initially advertised something very different from the final product

 

[disap.ed]

Right.

Slowclap.gif

And +1

 

[Freezie KO]

I'm pretty sure companies which sell products (ie third party video games in your analogy) at Whole Foods would prefer that Whole Foods not sell their own products (ie Nintendo games) in the store if they compete with one another, especially if the latter consistently sell more than the former.

Again, you're just wrong. Whole Foods has its own brands that it sells right beside the "third party" products. Whole Foods' brand is called "365." Trader Joe's has its own brand. CVS has its own brand.

Whether or not the third parties think they like this is immaterial. The reality of the market is that these "first-party" products define the "platform".

What you're talking about is creating an environment in which shooters can be successful on Nintendo consoles. Nintendo developing/funding their own exclusive shooter is not a pre-requisite to this and is probably detrimental to the end goal of attracting third parties. There are other methods to do so (although frankly I wouldn't even bother with it if I were Nintendo outside of maybe having Call of Duty on there - focus on the market that your competitors aren't focusing on instead)

Nintendo developing or funding their own game will not be detrimental. Mario didn't chase away Sonic games, it attracted them. Is a Nintendo-funded shooter a "pre-requisite"? No. Maybe they could release hardware that third-parties can port to with absolute ease, and moneyhat the ports until an audience shows up. But that's not happening.

It's not that Nintendo has to go all-in on shooters, but they're severely lacking diversity. And that hurts their hardware sales, which also lowers the ceiling on how much they can sell their other brands.

 

[SolidSnakex]

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.

I agree and i've never said anything to suggest otherwise. From the start i've specifically mentioned the Wii U's support. I haven't said anything about the 3DS having poor support (because it doesn't). Right now the biggest Wii U Japanese third party games are old ports. The next mainline Monster Hunter is a 3DS exclusive and the next Dragon Quest will likely be a 3DS exclusive as well. Some of the other notable million seller third party franchises in Japan are games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts, and the newest entries in those games aren't coming to the Wii U either. So, where does that leave the Japanese support for the Wii U?

 

[Toparaman]

Nintendo just need to release a Kingdom Hearts-esque JRPG featuring all of their franchises through Monolithsoft.

Advertise the shit out of it and see it roll in dosh.

My money. Take it.

Alternatively, have HAL develop it. They know how to do quirky RPGs (Mother series), and they know how to bring several Nintendo franchises together (Smash Bros.).

 

[Vermillion]

I was kinda expecting either 3D Mario or Retro's game at E3 to show some great usage of the Gamepad to help justify the focus on it/the expense of producing it

and we got a DKC you can just as easily play with a controller and multiplayer 3D Mario built to accommodate Wiimote/D-pad users

but hey, off-tv play right

Yup. Tragic.

 

[JordanN]

Jeesh all this drama. Still, I don't see how Iwata resigning now or the next year will help Nintendo's current situation. Yamauchi stepping down in '02 and replacing him with Iwata didn't help the Gamecube. It took a while before everything was in place for DS and Wii.

This begs the question of what the hell did Iwata do during those years?

Just jumping straight to DS/Wii feels extremely short sighted (especially since those were in part also Yamuachi's ideas) as that leaves a big opening in Iwata's leadership skills.

Why did Iwata make zero initiative to correct the Gamecube? It was obvious from then on you can't put out a console and expect it to sell because it's made by Nintendo. This line of thinking is completely false.

 

[AntMurda]

This begs the question of what the hell did Iwata do during those years?

Just jumping straight to DS/Wii feels extremely short sighted (especially since those were in part also Yamuachi's ideas) as that leaves a big opening in Iwata's leadership skills.

Why did Iwata make zero initiative to correct the Gamecube? It was obvious from then on you can't put out a console and expect it to sell because it's made by Nintendo. This line of thinking is completely false.

Satoru Iwata was appointed the Corporate Planning Director of NCL in 2000. He was absolutely invested in the GameCube and GBA launches.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Again, you're just wrong. Whole Foods has its own brands that it sells right beside the "third party" products. Whole Foods' brand is called "365." Trader Joe's has its own brand. CVS has its own brand.

Whether or not the third parties think they like this is immaterial. The reality of the market is that these "first-party" products define the "platform".

Right, they do have their own brand. But third parties probably don't like that because it takes away their potential profit. This is more relevant with Nintendo/third parties than Whole Foods/whatever because the data clearly suggests that Nintendo games consistently outsell third party games (whereas I'm not so sure the same is true for store-branded food - there's also other factors including store-branded products being cheaper than national brands, whereas the opposite is true for Nintendo and third parties).

Nintendo developing or funding their own game will not be detrimental. Mario didn't chase away Sonic games, it attracted them. Is a Nintendo-funded shooter a "pre-requisite"? No. Maybe they could release hardware that third-parties can port to with absolute ease, and moneyhat the ports until an audience shows up. But that's not happening.

It's not that Nintendo has to go all-in on shooters, but they're severely lacking diversity. And that hurts their hardware sales, which also lowers the ceiling on how much they can sell their other brands.

Call of Duty Black Ops 2 - the biggest console shooter - was on the Wii U at launch (so I'm not sure what more you could really want than that, besides the couple other mediocre shooters that release every other week). Third parties did port to the Wii U and the problem is not the hardware - it's that the Wii U has a tiny user base by virtue of it being a new console (and poor sales) so third parties have little interest in putting content on the system. More Nintendo content will clearly help this - that much is obvious. But the idea that Nintendo needs to get some exclusive shooter to expand their audience is simply incorrect. It's chasing an audience that their competitors already have a solid lock on.

A lack of shooters is not the problem with the Wii U. Anyone who has any interest in that genre will be purchasing one of the other consoles instead. If shooters are your favorite genre and your only console is the Wii U, you're a stupid consumer. That's it.

 

[Toski]

Right, they do have their own brand. But third parties probably don't like that because it takes away their potential profit. This is more relevant with Nintendo/third parties than Whole Foods/whatever because the data clearly suggests that Nintendo games consistently outsell third party games (whereas I'm not so sure the same is true for store-branded food - there's also other factors including store-branded products being cheaper than national brands, whereas the opposite is true for Nintendo and third parties).



Call of Duty Black Ops 2 - the biggest console shooter - was on the Wii U at launch (so I'm not sure what more you could really want than that, besides the couple other mediocre shooters that release every other week). Third parties did port to the Wii U and the problem is not the hardware - it's that the Wii U has a tiny user base by virtue of it being a new console (and poor sales) so third parties have little interest in putting content on the system. More Nintendo content will clearly help this - that much is obvious. But the idea that Nintendo needs to get some exclusive shooter to expand their audience is simply incorrect. It's chasing an audience that their competitors already have a solid lock on.

A lack of shooters is not the problem with the Wii U. Anyone who has any interest in that genre will be purchasing one of the other consoles instead. If shooters are your favorite genre and your only console is the Wii U, you're a stupid consumer. That's it.

Do you not see the feedback loop this kind of thinking causes? Shooters don't sell on Nintendo consoles, which means putting shooters on Nintendo consoles is a waste of time and money, and then Nintendo doesn't have any shooters to attract those people.

Are you saying Iwata/Nintendo should just cede certaian genres/demographics to its competitors? If you think that, why should publishers like EA, Bethesda, and Rockstar bother with Nintendo?

 

[royalan]

A lack of shooters is not the problem with the Wii U. Anyone who has any interest in that genre will be purchasing one of the other consoles instead. If shooters are your favorite genre and your only console is the Wii U, you're a stupid consumer. That's it.

Yep, blame the consumer. That always works.

 

[Freezie KO]

A lack of shooters is not the problem with the Wii U. Anyone who has any interest in that genre will be purchasing one of the other consoles instead. If shooters are your favorite genre and your only console is the Wii U, you're a stupid consumer. That's it.

If shooters are your favorite genre and you only own a Wii U, sure, that's uninformed. But what about if you want to play platformers and shooters? Or adventure games and shooters? The problem is that until Pikmin comes out, the only thing Nintendo is offering is if you want to play platformers and platformers. Oh, and minigames.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's going on with Activision and Nintendo, but getting CoD when they did for Wii U is obviously not enough. I bought it, but the game launched a week late. The first Wii U copy got put on a store shelf after 800,000 copies had already been sold.

The game was unadvertised, like all Nintendo CoD games. It's unsupported by stuff the community cares about like immediate patches and DLC. It's shunned even by its publisher. Is the port quality? Yeah. Treyarch does an amazing job. But Activision won't even let people know that.

If Nintendo wants to prove that their platform is a viable market for the biggest third-party game and games like it, they need to be proactive. MS securing Titanfall as a multiple "Game of E3" Press Fellatio Award Winner is not going to chase away other shooters. It's establishing the console as a viable platform before it has even released.

The only thing stopping Nintendo from investing in genres or styles that the largest markets in the world care about is their conservative financial strategy. But this is like austerity in a depression; it doesn't work. Any good economist will tell you that, in a depression, you need to spend money to make money. And Nintendo's economy is depressed.

Nintendo does have a diverse first-party slate, but those games create a fertile ground for Sonic and minigames, not for the big Western franchises that now rule the sales charts. As much as I love Pikmin and Fire Emblem (and I really really do), they are niche games. But if Nintendo wants diversity to appeal to other markets, they need to foster it themselves because, as with the CoD example, third-parties can't be expected to lead the way.

Their overall strategic problem extends to the way Nintendo treats the games they do have. How can they expect to build a good online community for CoD, when they don't respect online from a first-party perspective? They don't put online in games that are no-brainers like Nintendo Land or Pikmin 3 multiplayer. There's no online leaderboards for Nintendo Land or Game and Wario. They didn't even try for either of their Mario platformers.

I love that I don't have to pay for online multiplayer. So Sony and MS are not perfect by any means. But Sony's and MS's commitment to a significant aspect of gaming (the internet) far surpasses Nintendo's. And this goes towards the broader point of fostering third-parties also. If Nintendo's market is "people who don't play shooters or care about online", then good luck getting any of the games that are trying to mix single player and online multiplayer that were all the rage at E3.

When looking at Nintendo's strategy for which games to fund in addition to their online strategy, you can see that they just have a huge problem looking outside their insular ideas of how gaming should be. They aren't fostering aspects of gaming that lots and lots of people care about, whether in genre or style or overall diversity or online. And it's hurting them.

 

[duckroll]

Iwata might not want to resign, but if things continue to go poorly for the company, he will probably have to just to prevent an internal revolt instigated by shareholders. Some of them are already pretty unhappy with how things are going. In the annual general shareholders meeting, he was the only director out of the 10 elected who had a 77% approval vote, instead of the usual >90%. In last year's meeting, he had a 90% approval vote. If things don't turn around, it's just going to get worse next year.

2013 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/voting_1306.pdf
2012 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2012/voting_1206.pdf

 

[Vermillion]

Iwata might not want to resign, but if things continue to go poorly for the company, he will probably have to just to prevent an internal revolt instigated by shareholders. Some of them are already pretty unhappy with how things are going. In the annual general shareholders meeting, he was the only director out of the 10 elected who had a 77% approval vote, instead of the usual >90%. In last year's meeting, he had a 90% approval vote. If things don't turn around, it's just going to get worse next year.

2013 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/voting_1306.pdf
2012 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2012/voting_1206.pdf

Oh. Well, damn.

 

[StreetsAhead]

Iwata might not want to resign, but if things continue to go poorly for the company, he will probably have to just to prevent an internal revolt instigated by shareholders. Some of them are already pretty unhappy with how things are going. In the annual general shareholders meeting, he was the only director out of the 10 elected who had a 77% approval vote, instead of the usual >90%. In last year's meeting, he had a 90% approval vote. If things don't turn around, it's just going to get worse next year.

2013 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/voting_1306.pdf
2012 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2012/voting_1206.pdf

Yep, I noticed that too. He might not resign, but they might decide to not keep him on if things don't improve. They need to meet that 100 billion forecast by the end of the FY at the very least to quieten some of the dissent.

On that, they ideally should have Mario Kart 8 out before the end of March, or they better hope that F2P Steel Diver is all kinds of addictive.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

That's where creating new IPs come in handy,

It doesn't matter that Twilight Princess is technically a mature, AAA game. It was from a longstanding Nintendo franchise. That game selling only PROVES that people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo franchises. Want to send the message to developers that there's an audience for a certain type of experience on your hardware, and not just specific franchises? You do it with new IP.

Funny thing is Nintendo KNOWS that. That's why they created the Wii_________ line of games to sell the sell the Wii's features, and didn't just slap on Mario like they always do.

Fact.

Nintendo current model made their home consoles hostage to their traditional franchises (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, Pokémon, Metroid) userbase, which only buys Nintendo consoles for these franchises and anything else. Guess what? They seems to keep that direction. What's coming for WiiU now? Mostly sequels to their old franchises. Inevitably, they'll, once again, rely on the "Nintendo is only for Nintendo games" which isn't good for them as the GameCube already proved that.

What made Wii able to achieve their huge userbase? Sure, Nintendo's traditional franchises did help, but their new IP's like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play were the real responsibles for Wii's groundbraking numbers and the new audience they succesfully managed to get.

Who's buying WiiU now are mostly an userbase who plays other consoles and treat Nintendo home consoles as a secondary platform for Nintendo games only. Nobody are buying their platform as their primary and only one. Nintendo isn't investing in new IP's now, so they probably won't be able to bring to the Wii U a new audience or something able to diversify it's reach like they did with Wii.

Nintendo needs to invest into new IP's and no longer become hostage to their traditional IPs success. They might attract an userbase to play these games, no doubt, but at the cost for playing them only, because these people who bought WiiU's only for Nintendo's games won't botter to play no third-party title on it because they'll play it on another platform, as they treat Nintendo's consoles as secondary/Nintendo only platform. Not only investing into new IP's will allow a new userbase reach, but depending on what kind of new IP's they decide to bring, it can pave ground for third-party titles to succeed on their platforms.

Their persistance on their same franchises over and over again are the reasons for why Nintendo's userbase are so restricted, because they (Nintendo) teach them that their platforms are only for these same franchises over and over again and they won't botter to offer them new franchsies. "If you want new franchises and new experiences, go play them on another platform, ours aren't for you." It's no secret why Nintendo's userbase who buys their consoles only for their games don't botter to play IP's which aren't Nintendo's own titles, because they play them on different platforms. Third-party games aren't the reason for why they bought it in the first place.

The only way to change this is shaking up their direction. While Iwata and Miyamoto are still influent and controlling the company's direction, this probably won't happen.

Iwata might not want to resign, but if things continue to go poorly for the company, he will probably have to just to prevent an internal revolt instigated by shareholders. Some of them are already pretty unhappy with how things are going. In the annual general shareholders meeting, he was the only director out of the 10 elected who had a 77% approval vote, instead of the usual >90%. In last year's meeting, he had a 90% approval vote. If things don't turn around, it's just going to get worse next year.

2013 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/voting_1306.pdf
2012 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2012/voting_1206.pdf

Thanks, duckroll.

This was expected to happen anytime soon. For a company who never lost money in their history before to suddenly start to loose money for two years in a row, it would be strange, to say the least, that nobody started to question his credibility,

 

[Dion Blaster]

I was kinda expecting either 3D Mario or Retro's game at E3 to show some great usage of the Gamepad to help justify the focus on it/the expense of producing it

and we got a DKC you can just as easily play with a controller and multiplayer 3D Mario built to accommodate Wiimote/D-pad users

but hey, off-tv play right

Me too. I honestly thought they designed the hardware with some specific games in mind. After E3 the second screen looks like more a luxury than something essential.

 

[Freezie KO]

Fact.

Nintendo current model made their home consoles hostage to their traditional franchises (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, Pokémon, Metroid) userbase, which only buys Nintendo consoles for these franchises and anything else. Guess what? They seems to keep that direction. What's coming for WiiU now? Mostly sequels to their old franchises. Inevitably, they'll, once again, rely on the "Nintendo is only for Nintendo games" which isn't good for them as the GameCube already proved that.

What made Wii able to achieve their huge userbase? Sure, Nintendo's traditional franchises did help, but their new IP's like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play were the real responsibles for Wii's groundbraking numbers and the new audience they succesfully managed to get.

Who's buying WiiU now are mostly an userbase who plays other consoles and treat Nintendo home consoles as a secondary platform for Nintendo games only. Nobody are buying their platform as their primary and only one. Nintendo isn't investing in new IP's now, so they probably won't be able to bring to the Wii U a new audience or something able to diversify it's reach like they did with Wii.

Nintendo needs to invest into new IP's and no longer become hostage to their traditional IPs success. They might attract an userbase to play these games, no doubt, but at the cost for playing them only, because these people who bought WiiU's only for Nintendo's games won't botter to play no third-party title on it because they'll play it on another platform, as they treat Nintendo's consoles as secondary/Nintendo only platform. Not only investing into new IP's will allow a new userbase reach, but depending on what kind of new IP's they decide to bring, it can pave ground for third-party titles to succeed on their platforms.

Their persistance on their same franchises over and over again are the reasons for why Nintendo's userbase are so restricted, because they (Nintendo) teach them that their platforms are only for these same franchises over and over again and they won't botter to offer them new franchsies. "If you want new franchises and new experiences, go play them on another platform, ours aren't for you." It's no secret why Nintendo's userbase who buys their consoles only for their games don't botter to play IP's which aren't Nintendo's own titles, because they play them on different platforms. Third-party games aren't the reason for why they bought it in the first place.

The only way to change this is shaking up their direction. While Iwata and Miyamoto are still influent and controlling the company's direction, this probably won't happen.

Well said. And the situation you described sets up a dangerous cycle of diminishing returns. If you're not releasing new experiences or introducing new people to the franchises you have, then your numbers can only go down.

I honestly thought they designed the hardware with some specific games in mind. After E3 the second screen looks like more a luxury than something essential.

The Wii U/3DS hardware design philosophy just feels completely backwards to the Wii/DS design philosophy.

 

[disap.ed]

On that, they ideally should have Mario Kart 8 out before the end of March, or they better hope that F2P Steel Diver is all kinds of addictive.

Easter is pretty late next year (20th of April), I guess (and hope) they will release it before this (so in March or first week of April).

 

[Rubius]

This sounds like something you'd say before you pull a lever and kill everyone.

"For Nintendo, Iwata?"
"No. For me."

 

[cafemomo]

God willing, he will be gone by next year.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

God willing, he will be gone by next year.

I would say he's gone by March 2015.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Fact.

Nintendo current model made their home consoles hostage to their traditional franchises (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, Pokémon, Metroid) userbase, which only buys Nintendo consoles for these franchises and anything else. Guess what? They seems to keep that direction. What's coming for WiiU now? Mostly sequels to their old franchises. Inevitably, they'll, once again, rely on the "Nintendo is only for Nintendo games" which isn't good for them as the GameCube already proved that.

What made Wii able to achieve their huge userbase? Sure, Nintendo's traditional franchises did help, but their new IP's like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play were the real responsibles for Wii's groundbraking numbers and the new audience they succesfully managed to get.

Who's buying WiiU now are mostly an userbase who plays other consoles and treat Nintendo home consoles as a secondary platform for Nintendo games only. Nobody are buying their platform as their primary and only one. Nintendo isn't investing in new IP's now, so they probably won't be able to bring to the Wii U a new audience or something able to diversify it's reach like they did with Wii.

Nintendo needs to invest into new IP's and no longer become hostage to their traditional IPs success. They might attract an userbase to play these games, no doubt, but at the cost for playing them only, because these people who bought WiiU's only for Nintendo's games won't botter to play no third-party title on it because they'll play it on another platform, as they treat Nintendo's consoles as secondary/Nintendo only platform. Not only investing into new IP's will allow a new userbase reach, but depending on what kind of new IP's they decide to bring, it can pave ground for third-party titles to succeed on their platforms.

Their persistance on their same franchises over and over again are the reasons for why Nintendo's userbase are so restricted, because they (Nintendo) teach them that their platforms are only for these same franchises over and over again and they won't botter to offer them new franchsies. "If you want new franchises and new experiences, go play them on another platform, ours aren't for you." It's no secret why Nintendo's userbase who buys their consoles only for their games don't botter to play IP's which aren't Nintendo's own titles, because they play them on different platforms. Third-party games aren't the reason for why they bought it in the first place.

The only way to change this is shaking up their direction. While Iwata and Miyamoto are still influent and controlling the company's direction, this probably won't happen.

The funny thing here is really the dissonance between Nintendo's very risky and subversive hardware design, and their conservative software design. They really need to have several more internal teams concentrating on new ideas that push the limits of their hardware. WarioWare alone just won't cut it. It's such a shame some of the best developers in the world have become victims of their own success to the point where they're basically producing Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash etc. regardless of platform.

It also ends up sending a bad message to the rest of the industry when it comes to Nintendo platforms. For all their criticism of the lack of support, their mode of operation is quite similar to what the rest of the industry is doing. Their biggest and best teams mostly work on stuff that is safe, while leaving the more experimental games, the ones actually designed around the console's unique features, in the hands of smaller teams.

Yes, they made Wii Sports/Fit/Music etc. but those titles weren't nearly enough to justify the hardware's existence. Motion plus was almost completely ignored by Nintendo, which is a crying shame because it had so much potential. It makes you feel bad for Nintendo's hardware designers, knowing there's a good chance many of the features they worked so hard to invent won't see much use..

This is my biggest problem with current Nintendo. Iwata has been repeatedly quoted saying they make new hardware as a means to enable better software. But too often does it seem as if they're primary goal is actually selling you the hardware, in the hopes that once you have it you'll buy whatever is available, even if it could have been made on a different platform. That's a very bad practice when you're trying to gain market share early in the generation. People investing in the hardware based on its potential for innovation need to be confident this innovation will be utilized, otherwise there's no reason to jump in early.

 

[ShogunDarius]

Say he goes, what then? who would you want to take his position?

 

[Freezie KO]

I would say he's gone by March 2015.

Which means it won't be until 2017 until we see any appreciable effect on Nintendo's output (whether that means being less safe with existing brands, funding new IP, more external partnerships like Platinum for first party publishing, etc.)

 

[JoeM86]

God willing, he will be gone by next year.

Why? So we can have someone who makes a super powerful console that drains the warchest? So we have someone who decides "Yeah, let's just cut bits out of games and make them DLC so we can make money"? So we have someone who decides "Yeah, let's move our games to iOS, damage our brands, and prevent people ever buying Nintendo handhelds again". No thanks.

The industry is filled with people who make decisions based solely upon money. Iwata is one of the few around who do it for the games. Iwata, Miyamoto, Cerny...they do it for the love of games, not for the love of money. If Iwata goes and is replaced by someone like that and Nintendo falls down that path just to please investors, I will be very displeased.

MS had massive losses last gen. Sony had massive losses last gen that they have yet to recover from. Why people want Nintendo to follow this same path, I do not know.

Nintendo has a plan now. They shifted their Q1/Q2 marketing budget to Q3/Q4 (this is confirmed) and we have multiple first party published games coming between now and the end of the year

July: Pikmin & New Super Luigi U retail
August: Wonderful 101
October: Wind Waker, Wii Party U
November: Donkey Kong, Mario & Sonic
December: Super Mario 3D World, Wii Fit U, Sonic Lost World (Nintendo publishing in Europe)

All of these come from very successful franchises. Donkey Kong Country Returns, for example, sold more than the entire Metroid Prime Trilogy put together. Super Mario 3D World is a sequel to the fastest selling 3D Mario game, one which aided in increasing 3DS sales by 11 million units in a matter of months (after the price cut gave it a small boost). Wonderful 101 fills the desire for a new IP, too. Wii Fit U at Christmas is also a fantastic marketing decision since that's when people gain weight most. There are also multiple third party games coming.

How about welet them enact their plan and see how that changes things before you call for his head. He turned the 3DS around, afterall. 33 million units in 2 years is a fantastic amount. It's not failing, just because its sales aren't breaking records in the west.

 

[Freezie KO]

The industry is filled with people who make decisions based solely upon money.

Iwata is a CEO. He makes decisions based on money. That's his job.

Does the Wii Fit series scream someone that is doing this for "the love of games"?

Did he greenlight Mario 3D World because it's the best thing for gaming? Or because 3D Land sold more than Galaxy in Japan, and this was a safe move to rush a 3D Mario out fast and shoehorn in multiplayer?

Is turning New Super Mario Bros. into a repetitive formula due to a desire for money or because that's what makes Mario more interesting as a game?

Did he put Retro on another sequel to Donkey Kong instead of Metroid or something new because he loves games, or because DKCR sold more than every Metroid Prime combined?

Sometimes his decisions line up with what I want (i.e. I like Donkey Kong more than Metroid, I like his stance on DLC), and sometimes it doesn't. But his job is to consider the financial impact of every decision Nintendo makes.

Their line-up at E3 was extremely safe and very lacking, both in first and third party support, owing to a complete mismanagement of Nintendo leading into the HD era.

I don't want Nintendo to turn into Microsoft, and I wasn't on Team #SackIwata before E3. But after their horrible showing, I realize that something at the company needs to be shaken up. Is it nice having a game developer as President of the company? Sure. Let's just get a different one.

 

[JoeM86]

Iwata is a CEO. He makes decisions based on money. That's his job.

Does the Wii Fit series scream someone that is doing this for "the love of games"?

Did he greenlight Mario 3D World because it's the best thing for gaming? Or because 3D Land sold more than Galaxy in Japan, and this was a safe move to rush a 3D Mario out fast and shoehorn in multiplayer?

Is turning New Super Mario Bros. into a repetitive formula due to a desire for money or because that's what makes Mario more interesting as a game?

Did he put Retro on another sequel to Donkey Kong instead of Metroid or something new because he loves games, or because DKCR sold more than every Metroid Prime combined?

Sometimes his decisions line up with what I want (i.e. I like Donkey Kong more than Metroid, I like his stance on DLC), and sometimes it doesn't. But his job is to consider the financial impact of every decision Nintendo makes.

Their line-up at E3 was extremely safe and very lacking, both in first and third party support, owing to a complete mismanagement of Nintendo leading into the HD era.

I don't want Nintendo to turn into Microsoft, and I wasn't on Team #SackIwata before E3. But after their horrible showing, I realize that something at the company needs to be shaken up. Is it nice having a game developer as President of the company? Sure. Let's just get a different one.

If he made decisions solely based on money, then Animal Crossing would have paid DLC and things such as that.

There is nothing wrong with Super Mario 3D World. If it had just a different name, then the complaints wouldn't exist. In single player, it looks and plays NOTHING like Super Mario 3D Land. It's no different to the non-physics based levels in Super Mario Galaxy. Also, Super Mario 3D Land is the fastest selling 3D Mario game worldwide, not just in Japan.

While the NSMB games are similar, people are acting like Nintendo is churning them out yearly. We've had four in six years, five in seven if you insist on counting NSMBU's DLC as its own game. This is less than in the late 80s, and people didn't complain about it being milked there.

Nintendo didn't make Retro do anything, Retro wanted to do another Donkey Kong. Besides, why is a second Donkey Kong a bad thing but a fourth Metroid from them not? Plus, you honestly think that other CEOs would have said "Yeah, let's go for a Metroid, a massively niche title, when we're trying to attract new people to the Wii U"? No

Only on NeoGAF would an E3 lineup of 3D Pokémon, a 3D Mario, a new Donkey Kong Country, a remake of a beloved 3D Zelda game, a 2D Zelda game, two new Smash Bros games, new IPs, a sequel to a critically acclaimed niche title and more be a "horrible showing". I really don't get gamers these days.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

Why? So we can have someone who makes a super powerful console that drains the warchest? So we have someone who decides "Yeah, let's just cut bits out of games and make them DLC so we can make money"? So we have someone who decides "Yeah, let's move our games to iOS, damage our brands, and prevent people ever buying Nintendo handhelds again". No thanks

While I don't care if Iwata necessarily stays, and while I won't pretend to understand a lot of what goes on behind the scenes, claiming that Iwata's hypothetical replacement would do everything you're suggesting is a bit of a leap in logic.

I will probably always play Nintendo games as long as they are available; they are among my absolute favorite in the industry. However, they definitely need something different. The hardware they have offered is completely unappealing to the market. I know software is the most important, but hardware is also critical to realizing their visions. To me, it is rather clear that they had no specific idea in mind when they designed the GamePad. At the very least, the technology was not there to accommodate their ideas. A screen on a controller could be very useful, but I feel that it is neutered on Wii U due to the technological restrictions and commercial unavailability and affordability. It would be different if every player had their own screen, but since we are only allowed one, I feel that Nintendo was forced to come forward asymmetric gameplay.

If Nintendo really believed that hardware was merely the vehicle with which they deliver their amazing games, then why isn't Wii U tailor-made for their games? It seems like such an afterthought. Look how their games take advantage of the GamePad. Off-TV Play is great, but it's more of a convenience, not a way to change the way you play.

I agree that Nintendo has a pretty strong line-up for the rest of this year; I think Nintendo has the best exclusives this year, but Wii U definitely didn't redefine how most of those games are played.

Nintendo really likes to try different things, and most of they've tried ended up becoming standardized. They popularized motion controls for gaming. Prior to that, they've got the D-Pad, Analog Stick, and Shoulder Buttons. Nintendo is phenomenal at times, but they've also got to focus on refining what is already there. Fix the account system, improve the online capabilities, and release hardware that is leaps and bounds ahead technology of six year old consoles.

NIntendo's management could also be better, from what little I understand. Haven't they cut the Wii off life support in its last couple of years? What in the world were they doing in that time? It's late, and I'm a little sleep-deprived, so I may have come off as abrasive and uneducated. I apologize for that.

Iwata is a CEO. He makes decisions based on money. That's his job.

Does the Wii Fit series scream someone that is doing this for "the love of games"?

Did he greenlight Mario 3D World because it's the best thing for gaming? Or because 3D Land sold more than Galaxy in Japan, and this was a safe move to rush a 3D Mario out fast and shoehorn in multiplayer?

Is turning New Super Mario Bros. into a repetitive formula due to a desire for money or because that's what makes Mario more interesting as a game?

Did he put Retro on another sequel to Donkey Kong instead of Metroid or something new because he loves games, or because DKCR sold more than every Metroid Prime combined?

Sometimes his decisions line up with what I want (i.e. I like Donkey Kong more than Metroid, I like his stance on DLC), and sometimes it doesn't. But his job is to consider the financial impact of every decision Nintendo makes.

Their line-up at E3 was extremely safe and very lacking, both in first and third party support, owing to a complete mismanagement of Nintendo leading into the HD era.

I don't want Nintendo to turn into Microsoft, and I wasn't on Team #SackIwata before E3. But after their horrible showing, I realize that something at the company needs to be shaken up. Is it nice having a game developer as President of the company? Sure. Let's just get a different one.

Okay, I'm not following here. You claim that everything Iwata has done so far was for money, yet you're also saying that he isn't making enough? Clearly, if his decisions are as safe as you say they are, then Nintendo should expect to do well financially. Therefore, if Nintendo does well in that regard, Iwata could be considered a competent CEO, right?

I just don't agree with you that Super Mario 3D World is phoned-in, I suppose.

 

[Megalosaro]

Didn't he basically just expand his powers even more?

 

[JoeM86]

While I don't care if Iwata necessarily stays, and while I won't pretend to understand a lot of what goes on behind the scenes, claiming that Iwata's hypothetical replacement would do everything you're suggesting is a bit of a leap in logic.

I will probably always play Nintendo games as long as they are available; they are among my absolute favorite in the industry. However, they definitely need something different. The hardware they have offered is completely unappealing to the market. I know software is the most important, but hardware is also critical to realizing their visions. To me, it is rather clear that they had no specific idea in mind when they designed the GamePad. At the very least, the technology was not there to accommodate their ideas. A screen on a controller could be very useful, but I feel that it is neutered on Wii U due to the technological restrictions and commercial unavailability and affordability. It would be different if every player had their own screen, but since we are only allowed one, I feel that Nintendo was forced to come forward asymmetric gameplay.

If Nintendo really believed that hardware was merely the vehicle with which they deliver their amazing games, then why isn't Wii U tailor-made for their games? It seems like such an afterthought. Look how their games take advantage of the GamePad. Off-TV Play is great, but it's more of a convenience, not a way to change the way you play.

I agree that Nintendo has a pretty strong line-up for the rest of this year; I think Nintendo has the best exclusives this year, but Wii U definitely didn't redefine how most of those games are played.

Nintendo really likes to try different things, and most of they've tried ended up becoming standardized. They popularized motion controls for gaming. Prior to that, they've got the D-Pad, Analog Stick, and Shoulder Buttons. Nintendo is phenomenal at times, but they've also got to focus on refining what is already there. Fix the account system, improve the online capabilities, and release hardware that is leaps and bounds ahead technology of six year old consoles.

NIntendo's management could also be better, from what little I understand. Haven't they cut the Wii off life support in its last couple of years? What in the world were they doing in that time? It's late, and I'm a little sleep-deprived, so I may have come off as abrasive and uneducated. I apologize for that.

It's not that big a jump. If Nintendo investors don't like the way Iwata is doing things, they'd want someone in charge who changes it. While yes, I took it to extremes, it's really not that absurd.

With the GamePad, apparently the original idea for it was solely for Off-TV Play, and the other features come as secondary. I, too, can't wait to see new ways to play using it, but these things take time. The same thing happened with the DS and its second screen.

The thing is, the GamePad concept has somewhat become standard. Look at E3 and how many of the games had companion apps that let you manipulate games on a tablet like Watch_Dogs, Battlefield 4 etc. They just do it separately so another person has to do it and/or you have to put down the controller, as opposed to doing it on the fly. Clearly developers like the idea, but for some reason they don't like doing it on the Wii U.

I also agree that they should have more to show since they cut Wii support early, but that doesn't mean Iwata should go or Nintendo is doing the wrong thing. One notable thing is that they shifted a lot of development in 2010/2011 to the 3DS to make sure that recovered, and they did that expertly. Now they're doing the same for the Wii U. It's just a shame their consoles stumble out of the gate at the moment. They'll do a respectable run in the longterm, but all people seem to be able to see is the short-term. Heck, people still think the 3DS is failing.

 

[Freezie KO]

There is nothing wrong with Super Mario 3D World. If it had just a different name, then the complaints wouldn't exist.

Wrong. You don't get to decide what other people's complaints are.

In single player, it looks and plays NOTHING like Super Mario 3D Land. It's no different to the non-physics based levels in Super Mario Galaxy.

How apologist can you get? Even the dev team says it's a direct sequel to 3D Land and that they had ideas left over from that game. How can you say it plays nothing like 3D Land when the developers themselves admit it? Even hands-on impressions that enjoyed the game said it plays like 3D Land.

It clearly looks like 3D Land as many people, myself included, thought it was a 3DS sequel when it was first unveiled. And showing a single spinning camera gif doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

Also, Super Mario 3D Land is the fastest selling 3D Mario game worldwide, not just in Japan.

Which is why they're rushing out another one.

While the NSMB games are similar, people are acting like Nintendo is churning them out yearly. We've had four in six years, five in seven if you insist on counting NSMBU's DLC as its own game. This is less than in the late 80s, and people didn't complain about it being milked there.

First off, stop with this "people" stuff. It's a garbage argument since you can't prove or disprove what "people" did. "People" are made up of individuals, and they can't be grouped together.

The NSMB games look and play identically. I know, I bought three of them. They are the definition of milking a successful formula for money.

Nintendo didn't make Retro do anything, Retro wanted to do another Donkey Kong.

Believe everything you read from public statements made by employees.

Besides, why is a second Donkey Kong a bad thing but a fourth Metroid from them not?

I don't even want another Metroid. A Metroid Prime 4 would be just as stale.

Plus, you honestly think that other CEOs would have said "Yeah, let's go for a Metroid, a massively niche title, when we're trying to attract new people to the Wii U"? No

I don't know what another CEO would do. But it couldn't be as safe as the line up from E3. That just wouldn't be possible.

Only on NeoGAF would an E3 lineup of 3D Pokémon, a 3D Mario, a new Donkey Kong Country, a remake of a beloved 3D Zelda game, a 2D Zelda game, two new Smash Bros games, new IPs, a sequel to a critically acclaimed niche title and more be a "horrible showing". I really don't get gamers these days.

Again with this "people" thing. Stop generalizing. "Gamers" do not all have the same opinion. Some people like the Zelda game and don't like the Mario game. Others find both poor decisions. Others have even different opinions.

Okay, I'm not following here. You claim that everything Iwata has done so far was for money, yet you're also saying that he isn't making enough? Clearly, if his decisions are as safe as you say they are, then Nintendo should expect to do well financially. Therefore, if Nintendo does well in that regard, Iwata could be considered a competent CEO, right?

I just don't agree with you that Super Mario 3D World is phoned-in, I suppose.

The software line-up is safe and designed for maximum profits. To understand why that is, you have to go back a bit.

The Wii U hardware was obviously not "safe". That was just a disastrous misreading of the market. Coupled with his mismanagement regarding Nintendo's needs to increase its own development as well as the lack of securing third-party support, clearly Iwata has made mistakes.

As a result of these mistakes, he's had to put Nintendo into "panic mode" which is essentially pushing out the most profitable, safest properties available to him.

I didn't say that everything Iwata has done has been safe. But due to these circumstances, he's clearly trying to maximize profitability, which is why I disagreed with the notion that he's somehow more pure than other money-hungry CEOs.

 

[JoeM86]

How apologist can you get? Even the dev team says it's a direct sequel to 3D Land and that they had ideas left over from that game. How can you say it plays nothing like 3D Land when the developers themselves admit it? Even hands-on impressions that enjoyed the game said it plays like 3D Land.

It clearly looks like 3D Land as many people, myself included, thought it was a 3DS sequel when it was first unveiled. And showing a single spinning camera gif doesn't change the mechanics of the game.

Yes, it's a sequel to 3D Land. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that it could just as easily be packaged otherwise and nobody would have made the connection.

Yes, it looks like Super Mario 3D Land. How, you ask? Well that's because it matches the standard Mario aesthetics. We'd have had the same aesthetics complaints no matter what.

Showing the camera is me showing you that it plays like 64/Sunshine/Galaxy, and not like Super Mario 3D Land which had a fixed camera. As such, that makes it no different to the other 3D Mario games.

I don't know what another CEO would do. But it couldn't be as safe as the line up from E3. That just wouldn't be possible.

The software line-up is safe and designed for maximum profits. To understand why that is, you have to go back a bit.

The Wii U hardware was obviously not "safe". That was just a disastrous misreading of the market. Coupled with his mismanagement regarding Nintendo's needs to increase its own development as well as the lack of securing third-party support, clearly Iwata has made mistakes.

As a result of these mistakes, he's had to put Nintendo into "panic mode" which is essentially pushing out the most profitable, safest properties available to him.

I didn't say that everything Iwata has done has been safe. But due to these circumstances, he's clearly trying to maximize profitability, which is why I disagreed with the notion that he's somehow more pure than other money-hungry CEOs

When trying to bring a console back from obscurity? It most certainly would be safe, in fact we likely wouldn't have things like Wonderful 101. Yes, he's trying to maximise profitability by bringing the console back out of obscurity by putting sequels to highly popular games on it. It's shocking how some don't seem to get the industry.

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

It's not that big a jump. If Nintendo investors don't like the way Iwata is doing things, they'd want someone in charge who changes it. While yes, I took it to extremes, it's really not that absurd.

With the GamePad, apparently the original idea for it was solely for Off-TV Play, and the other features come as secondary. I, too, can't wait to see new ways to play using it, but these things take time. The same thing happened with the DS and its second screen.

The thing is, the GamePad concept has somewhat become standard. Look at E3 and how many of the games had companion apps that let you manipulate games on a tablet like Watch_Dogs, Battlefield 4 etc. They just do it separately so another person has to do it and/or you have to put down the controller, as opposed to doing it on the fly. Clearly developers like the idea, but for some reason they don't like doing it on the Wii U.

I also agree that they should have more to show since they cut Wii support early, but that doesn't mean Iwata should go or Nintendo is doing the wrong thing

I do agree that I saw GamePad-like concepts at E3 in a greater volume than I had anticipated. However, a lot of these are auxiliary functions that are not central to the game. These functions seem poorly suited to local play and appear more useful online. Essentially, anyone, anywhere, can pull out their tablet and interact with someone playing on their console (if I understand correctly, which I may not). This is when they don't have the opportunity to play the game normally; they have to resort to dropping items or operating a drone. I don't think the developers intend for people to play on the tablet rather than the controller. Wii U lacks this flexibility, I think.

As I mentioned earlier, screens on controllers don't seem to be mature enough for mass adoption. With tablets, it's as though other companies have not committed to the idea. Nintendo has committed, yet they can't continually come up with groundbreaking ideas for a single extra screen to justify the GamePad.

The software line-up is safe and designed for maximum profits. To understand why that is, you have to go back a bit.

The Wii U hardware was obviously not "safe". That was just a disastrous misreading of the market. Coupled with his mismanagement regarding Nintendo's needs to increase its own development as well as the lack of securing third-party support, clearly Iwata has made mistakes.

As a result of these mistakes, he's had to put Nintendo into "panic mode" which is essentially pushing out the most profitable, safest properties available to him.

I didn't say that everything Iwata has done has been safe. But due to these circumstances, he's clearly trying to maximize profitability, which is why I disagreed with the notion that he's somehow more pure than other money-hungry CEOs.

So you agree that Iwata is doing his job as a CEO and trying to maximize profits?

 

[StreetsAhead]

I don't know what another CEO would do. But it couldn't be as safe as the line up from E3. That just wouldn't be possible.

Yes, it could have been. Cut out Bayonetta, X, The Wonderful 101, Mario Kart 8's wall-play gimmick, the 3D sections of DKTF, a new retail NSMB branded game, a 3DS Animal Crossing port for Wii U, and announce Ridley for Smash.

As a result of these mistakes, he's had to put Nintendo into "panic mode" which is essentially pushing out the most profitable, safest properties available to him.

Most of those decisions would have been made months or years before it was obvious the Wii U was going to "fail".

 

[Freezie KO]

Yes, it's a sequel to 3D Land. I'm not disputing that.

Yes, you are. You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You said it "looks and plays NOTHING like Super Mario 3D Land". Those are your words.

How can a sequel look and play nothing like its predecessor? That's an absurd contradiction.

Yes, it looks like Super Mario 3D Land. How, you ask? Well that's because it matches the standard Mario aesthetics. We'd have had the same aesthetics complaints no matter what.

I don't care about the aesthetics, but Sunshine and Galaxy clearly show that you can mix up the "standard Mario aesthetics".

Showing the camera is me showing you that it plays like 64/Sunshine/Galaxy, and not like Super Mario 3D Land which had a fixed camera. As such, that makes it no different to the other 3D Mario games.

Did you have to reach the flagpole at the end of every level in 64/Sunshine/Galaxy? Were there 3 Star Coins/Green Stars to collect in each level? Was there a timer? Just look at any playthrough of the game. The level design is clearly following the same philosophy of 3D Land, with blocky structures made to emulate the 2D/3D hybrid.

Yes, he's trying to maximise profitability by bringing the console back out of obscurity by putting sequels to highly popular games on it. It's shocking how some don't seem to get the industry.

Okay, here's my problem with your posts: You say stuff like the above, which directly contradicts things you said minutes earlier. Like this:

The industry is filled with people who make decisions based solely upon money. Iwata is one of the few around who do it for the games. Iwata, Miyamoto, Cerny...they do it for the love of games, not for the love of money.

So which is it? Is Iwata trying to maximize profitability? Or is he greenlighting extremely safe sequels for "the love of games"?

--

So you agree that Iwata is doing his job as a CEO and trying to maximize profits?

Yes. He is trying. But due to years of mismanagement, he's just digging himself out of the hole that he dug.

 

[m.i.s.]

people still think the 3DS is failing.

I don't know about "people" but numerous posters have held their positions to a consistent standard. One sales age poster, for example, has maintained that Iwata has missed every single one of his sales targets on 3DS. Yet other sales agers have pointed out that since the start of this year, 3DS has been basically flat year-on-year in NA as evidenced by NPD sales figures. ie whilst it may not be declining, it isn't growing either. And all this is going on whilst the Vita is dead and the DS has been EOL. This is the 2nd year phase where 3DS should be growing but isn't.

 

[fallagin]

Its too late Iwata. Waluigi is now nintendo's top man.

 

[cafemomo]

Yes, you are. You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You said it "looks and plays NOTHING like Super Mario 3D Land". Those are your words.

How can a sequel look and play nothing like its predecessor? That's an absurd contradiction.

B-but i-if you repackage it and market it a different way people won't make the connection!

 

[JoeM86]

I don't know about "people" but numerous posters have held their positions to a consistent standard. One sales age poster, for example, has maintained that Iwata has missed every single one of his sales targets on 3DS. Yet other sales agers have pointed out that 3DS has been basically flat year-on-year as evidenced by NPD sales figures. ie whilst it may not be declining, it isn't growing either. And all this is going on whilst the Vita is dead and the DS has been EOL. This is the 2nd year phase where 3DS should be growing but isn't.

I can guarantee that when you see Animal Crossing's impact on it in the next NPD, and Pokémon's in October, we won't be complaining about lack of growth anymore

Yes, you are. You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You said it "looks and plays NOTHING like Super Mario 3D Land". Those are your words.

How can a sequel look and play nothing like its predecessor? That's an absurd contradiction.

What I'm saying is that it could just as easily be packaged otherwise and nobody would have made the connection.



I don't care about the aesthetics, but Sunshine and Galaxy clearly show that you can mix up the "standard Mario aesthetics".



Did you have to reach the flagpole at the end of every level in 64/Sunshine/Galaxy? Were there 3 Star Coins/Green Stars to collect in each level? Was there a timer? Just look at any playthrough of the game. The level design is clearly following the same philosophy of 3D Land, with blocky structures made to emulate the 2D/3D hybrid.



Okay, here's my problem with your posts: You say stuff like the above, which directly contradicts things you said minutes earlier. Like this:



So which is it? Is Iwata trying to maximize profitability? Or is he greenlighting extremely safe sequels for "the love of games"?

--



Yes. He is trying. But due to years of mismanagement, he's just digging himself out of the hole that he dug.

What I'm trying to do is paint the picture that it's not all doom and gloom and rehashes. Yes, he's trying to turn the Wii U around. That was never in question.

For one, Galaxy WAS just go to the end with little exploring, it just had a star at the end rather than a flagpole, and it had Comet Coins dotted around its levels, too.

I am not contradicting myself, at all.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't know about "people" but numerous posters have held their positions to a consistent standard. One sales age poster, for example, has maintained that Iwata has missed every single one of his sales targets on 3DS. Yet other sales agers have pointed out that since the start of this year, 3DS has been basically flat year-on-year in NA as evidenced by NPD sales figures. ie whilst it may not be declining, it isn't growing either. And all this is going on whilst the Vita is dead and the DS has been EOL. This is the 2nd year phase where 3DS should be growing but isn't.

Graphical representation.

TTM US 3DS sales:

There are gaps in the data I have for the NDS and PSP, so can't do an equivalent look.

But this is the TTM US GBA sales:

It will be interesting whether Pokemon and the other games slated this year can reverse the overarching trend.

 

[Turrican3]

A first-party game doesn't chase away third-parties. It builds the market and the demographics for them. [...]

Yet, somehow this doesn't seem to work in the Nintendo ecosystem.

Because despite the huge success of Mario platformers, Smash Bros and/or Zelda, I see little to no comparable third party efforts in the same genres.

On the other hand there's a reason we got flooded with casual games as soon as people realized the Wii wasn't going to stop selling like mad: those games were extremely cheap to made.

No wonder most of them were shitty to say the least, barring a couple of Ubisoft games - Just Dance immediately comes to mind which I believe was nicely done for the genre/audience it belongs to -

Now, it could be argued it doesn't really make sense to put your next CoD-killer on a platform that apparently has no audience interested in online-focused shooters... but even then, why aren't there any high budget games in genres where Nintendo usually enjoys strong successes either?

It seems a vicious circle to me. :-\

 

[DragonSworne]

Yet, somehow this doesn't seem to work in the Nintendo ecosystem.

Because despite the huge success of Mario platformers, Smash Bros and/or Zelda, I see little to no comparable third party efforts in the same genres.

On the other hand there's a reason we got flooded with casual games as soon as people realized the Wii wasn't going to stop selling like mad: those games were extremely cheap to made.

No wonder most of them were shitty to say the least, barring a couple of Ubisoft games - Just Dance immediately comes to mind which I believe was nicely done for the genre/audience it belongs to -

Now, it could be argued it doesn't really make sense to put your next CoD-killer on a platform that apparently has no audience interested in online-focused shooters... but even then, why aren't there any high budget games in genres where Nintendo usually enjoys strong successes either?

It seems a vicious circle to me. :-

Because Wii was a last last gen system that did not support the engines nearly 100% of the industry moved to and adopted.

Blame Iwata and co for thinking system power means nothing. These guys are so out of touch when it comes technology that do not comprehend that there is always an architectural baseline needed to support engines.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Iwata might not want to resign, but if things continue to go poorly for the company, he will probably have to just to prevent an internal revolt instigated by shareholders. Some of them are already pretty unhappy with how things are going. In the annual general shareholders meeting, he was the only director out of the 10 elected who had a 77% approval vote, instead of the usual >90%. In last year's meeting, he had a 90% approval vote. If things don't turn around, it's just going to get worse next year.

2013 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2013/voting_1306.pdf
2012 voting results: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2012/voting_1206.pdf

While I guess it could be a concern investors don't realise its a Team-Fail effort from Takeda and Miyamoto too, its probably fair the captain of it all is getting the lions share of the blame. I guess the story will go he should have just told Takeda and Miyamoto what to do rather than hope they'd achieve success again themselves.

I guess he could dip to 60% approval, fail for another year on the promise of the joint Mario Kart/Smash Bros messiahs, and then get the chop 2015.