Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

I think I made a really long post on this last year and Kohler laughed at me

This demand is variable. If Nintendo were still selling 50k a week this year, without appealing to this demographic, we might consider such action as superfluous as appealing to the same demographic in America. I think this imperative has only gotten stronger because of Nintendo's lack of success in the one area where it has no external competition, and also because of the looming threat of success by a competitor in the same area. Nintendo's unprepared, and if they end up selling gangbusters this holiday season on the back of NSMB Wii, I think they should still face criticism of pushing the Doomsday clock all the way to five minutes to midnight, whether or not atomic destruction actually occurred.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Under threat of not being the next PS2? Well, obviously. The DS already has that title. And the DS did it without all the bestest third party software that elevated the PS2 to crazy heights. Obviously the Wii is not going to sell THAT much. It's basically what the PS2 would have been without the vast majority of third party support auto-crowning it king of sales. Why wouldn't the PS2 sell a ton. Why wouldn't the Wii not compare.

Wii started off stronger than either PS2 or DS. For most of its first year, it was the quickest-selling new hardware the Japanese market had ever seen. That it's now far behind both of them is a pretty big slip.

 

[onipex]

Look at it this way, do you think Iwata is happy with these sales? Do you believe the people at Nintendo are thinking hmmm, sales are still at about PS2 level without major third party support we must be doing good? I certainly don't believe that to be the case. Especially after the huge succes of the DS. Nintendo's goal is to outsell the PS2, and not by a small margin. This is not where the Wii is supposed to be. I would say its in a really bad position right now.

I do believe that Nintendo is going to be highly competitive though. They are far from doomed or out of the race.

I remember Iwata saying that the goal was to outsell the gamecube. Although I do not think they are happy with sales they have now. I don't believe that they lose sleep at night over the sales either.

Nintendo is only in trouble when compared to their own sales.

WSR's legs aren't the problem. It's the fact that new consumers aren't buying Wiis because of it. Didn't Iwata say that he expects "long tail" software to take six to eight weeks to drive hardware sales? Hasn't that period passed? And if not, shouldn't hardware sales remain relatively constant in that period? (Outside of festival and/or holiday-related bumps.)

Nintendo is trying a new strategy that may work or fail, but they can take that risk before dropping the price. The bump the Wii had was most likely caused by MH3 and the black Wii. We will see how things turn out once Wii Fit is out.

Anyone that has been paying attention has seen the difference betwenn sales of 2d mario and 3d mario so I'm sure NSMB Wii will cause a bumb.

In absolute terms, the Wii has an untouchable lead. My concern would be in regards to a core demographic which I think Nintendo has the chance to capture, and may possibly give away to Sony.

Nintendo got some of the core with MH 3 and will get some more with NSMB Wii and DQ X. What other game besides Zelda would really drive the core crowd to Nintendo that is not already coming out or already out on another system?



When talking about the balance board support I think third parties have done an ok job in supporting it. I didn't expect much support from Nintendo, because they usually don't give much for their peripherals. I wont own one until Wii Fit Plus is released anyway.

 

[kinggroin]

I think the problem with Nintendo (more specifically, the Wii) is one of demographics.

I mean, they've probably sold more consoles to the casual gaming market than any manufacturer before it. Price drops, new colors, and even new games aren't going to do shit as far expanding marketshare the way they used to. Key software franchises will still sell well (NSMBs), even some major third party ones as well (ex. Monster Hunter), but if the big N wants to see a continued success anywhere near what they had achieved earlier on, there's one thing they HAVE to do.


Win back, the hardcore demographic; and considering the fact that a Nintendo console hasn't captured that demopgraphic in any major way since the snes, it isn't going to happen.

This gen will eventually end with the Wii comfortably ahead of the 360/PS3 WW, I'm sure. Their momentum at that point howver, is now dangerously up in the air imo.

The next few months should be very interesting.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Win back, the hardcore demographic; and considering the fact that a Nintendo console hasn't captured that demopgraphic in any major way since the snes, it isn't going to happen.

Well, there are a lot of things successful systems like SNES and Wii can manage that unsuccessful systems like N64 and GCN won't.

 

[gerg]

I think the problem with Nintendo (more specifically, the Wii) is one of demographics.

I mean, they've probably sold more consoles to the casual gaming market than any manufacturer before it. Price drops, new colors, and even new games aren't going to do shit as far expanding marketshare the way they used to. Key software franchises will still sell well (NSMBs), even some major third party ones as well (ex. Monster Hunter), but if the big N wants to see a continued success anywhere near what they had achieved earlier on, there's one thing they HAVE to do.


Win back, the hardcore demographic; and considering the fact that a Nintendo console hasn't captured that demopgraphic in any major way since the snes, it isn't going to happen.

This gen will eventually end with the Wii comfortably ahead of the 360/PS3 WW, I'm sure. Their momentum at that point howver, is now dangerously up in the air imo.

The next few months should be very interesting.

While I agree with your sentiment, I would like to state that attracting the "hardcore" anything isn't the problem. The problem is in attracting a demographic, composed (as with any demographic) largely of casual gamers, but with distinct tastes. In this case, what would probably be most accurate would be to say that Nintendo needs to attract 18-35 male casual gamers (in Japan).

Nintendo is trying a new strategy that may work or fail, but they can take that risk before dropping the price.

As I said before, it depends. Concern over Nintendo's ability to compete against a successful PS3 only exists because of their failure to meet their own goals. The main problem arises when both of these situations come to fruition at the same time, which may or may not be happening. If it is an "either/or" situation, I imagine that concern is much less pronounced.

The bump the Wii had was most likely caused by MH3 and the black Wii. We will see how things turn out once Wii Fit is out.

I don't think that Wii Fit Plus will cause a boost in momentum for the Wii, at all.

Anyone that has been paying attention has seen the difference betwenn sales of 2d mario and 3d mario so I'm sure NSMB Wii will cause a bumb.

I never said otherwise. However, for Nintendo's own sake NSMB has to be bloody good sales-wise.

Nintendo got some of the core with MH 3 and will get some more with NSMB Wii and DQ X. What other game besides Zelda would really drive the core crowd to Nintendo that is not already coming out or already out on another system?

First, I would make the same point I made to kinggroin above.

Secondly, I imagine that releasing a constant stream of, say, RPGs - be they big IPs or otherwise - would have done a lot to bolster the Wii's chances of success with this crowd.

 

[poppabk]

Who has captured the hardcore demographic, or are they still on the PS2?

 

[kinggroin]

Well, there are a lot of things successful systems like SNES and Wii can manage that unsuccessful systems like N64 and GCN won't.

I'm not arguing whether or not there is leverage that can be used in capturing such an audience because these are two very successful systems. No, I'm simply saying Nintendo isn't going to do it.

The kind of aggressive maneuvers needed in courting the kind of software that would move 360/PS3/PS2 owners to the Wii console, is far beyond anything Nintendo has attempted in it's history. It's not just software either, but mindshare among the hardcore (or to be more specific - the 18-35 yr. old gamers).

Goodluck convincing xHardcoreofDutyx to switch over from the whatever HD platform he's on, to one that's anemic in the kind of features he looks for.

*Also, I KNOW their are a shitload of PS2 owners just waiting for the right console to jump to. I just know it. My gut tells me that while many have moved to the 360, many many more would LOVE to move to the PS3.




*not to be taken as any serious sales/market discussion. Just my own uneducated guess

 

[Kobun Heat]

I think I made a really long post on this last year and Kohler laughed at me

who's in the what now

 

[gerg]

Who has captured the hardcore demographic, or are they still on the PS2?

Everyone has hardcore gamers. They're completely insignificant.

Unless you mean "hardcore" as a by-word for the (almost completely casual) 18-35 male demographic, then in Japan I think they probably most populated on the PS3, but as a whole I wouldn't be surprised if many have yet to make the move to next-gen (outside of the DS and/or PSP).

 

[charlequin]

Edit- the big failure to me is the lack of RPG's. Almost 3 years into the Wii's life and there is one high profile RPG- Tales of Graces. I think Nintendo could have and should have been much more aggressive, both internally and with 3rd parties.

My position early on was that contrary to popular belief, RPGs were not a graphically-intensive genre and that a little effort could move something like 80% of JRPGs to Wii. That, uh, obviously didn't pan out. :lol

that they are better ignoring their own forecasts and instead focusing on the long term future of the company.

Yes, but Nintendo's actions haven't done that either; instead, they've simply represented a failure of strategy, a performance that is underwhelming in comparison to the previous potential that visibly existed.

So my question is, in the long term how have Nintendo seriously fucked themselves and what should they have done to avoid this?

They should have utilized a combination of active third-party courting early on in the system's life and a fuller internal development strategy (releasing a wider selection of lower-budget new IPs suited to the Wii's unique strengths in order to keep a constant flow of software coming out) right away so that when the last huge hit (Wii Fit) started to wear off, Wii owners and potential buyers found a strong selection of varied software titles waiting for them; they also should've planned around having a price drop within a year of exhausting the pent-up demand (whenever that ended up happening) in order to best balance the costs of a price drop against the benefits of maintaining a steady momentum of sales.

I should note that I don't expect particularly bullish things to happen to the PS3 and Sony's pre-Slim efforts have been frankly pathetic.

...

Basically, my stance is that the 40-50k a week the Wii was doing consistently up until late summer 2007 and then later in the first half of 2008 could have been sustainable until now.

I agree completely. My long-term projection is still that Sony rebranding the 2009 PS3 into 90% of what it should have been in 2006 is too little, too late from an overall product-success standpoint (I don't expect it to drastically increase in sales, or certainly to overtake the Wii LTD), but I think the only reason the idea of it competing with the Wii is even on the table right now is that Nintendo's failed strategy allowed 50k weeks to become 20k weeks out of sheer disinterest in the market.

This demand is variable. If Nintendo were still selling 50k a week this year, without appealing to this demographic, we might consider such action as superfluous as appealing to the same demographic in America.

In 2007, I argued that moving upmarket to draw in the bottommost members of the "core gamer" demographic was a good insurance policy for Nintendo, that would help ensure that even if expanded-market titles dried up the system would remain vibrant (a la the DS) and everyone said it was stupid to suggest Nintendo try to protect their interests instead of sitting on their ass counting their money again.

 

[Parl]

I'm confused by the terminology.

Most hardcore gamers will own a Wii and actively buy games for it. Same with 360 and/or PS3. Core gamers play RE5, MGS4, SMG, and may or may not own a Wii, but will most likely own a 360 and/or PS3. Casual gamers play Madden, GTA, and Mario Kart Wii, and may or may not own a Wii, and may or may not own a 360/PS3. And new gamers play Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, etc, and will most likely own a Wii.

I'm generalising, and you may disagree with my non-effort to definte useful distinctions between the terms, but it seems as though the definitions of these terms have been warped to suit an agenda over the last few years. The way I've mostly perceived it - hardcore gamers are a minor part of the market, core gamers are like the mass market gamers who play gamers moderately, not very often and not casually - inbetween hardcore and casual. New gamers playing Wii Sports can be hardcore in their dedication and time spent, though can also be very casual.

I don't like such terms all that much anyway, because we end up with a game somehow being "casual" which seems incredibly unreasoned. And even worse, the arrogant term "gamer gamers".

 

[xs_mini_neo]

Wii started off stronger than either PS2 or DS. For most of its first year, it was the quickest-selling new hardware the Japanese market had ever seen. That it's now far behind both of them is a pretty big slip.

Front loaded sales? I just don't expect a lot from any console manufacturer.

Look at it this way, do you think Iwata is happy with these sales? .

I don't think he gives as much of a shit as some of the people who keep debating this do.

Iwata is not Yamauchi.

Edit- the big failure to me is the lack of RPG's. Almost 3 years into the Wii's life and there is one high profile RPG- Tales of Graces. I think Nintendo could have and should have been much more aggressive, both internally and with 3rd parties.

DQX? Sony's way of doing business with third parties is not the end all be all. Nintendo isn't going to drown third parties in cash. They aren't seeking world domination, nor do they want to win because of moneyhats. They want to succeed because of their software. No moneyhats were needed to make the DS and Wii huge successes. What does that tell you? Call me crazy, but I appreciate a little restraint and standards when looking at a big corporation. I know the reasons why they are like that (exception to the rule and all that) but still.

Then they failed to advertise or effectively position SMG, having it bomb out of the gate. Thankfully, they did a post-launch aggressive and excellent advertising campaign, and saved face a good deal... They did well Christmas 2007 minus that.

Then came Brawl, which worked out well, but they didn't follow up Brawl with anything for the same target audience. They failed to counterprogram MK Wii / Wii Fit. That's not a big deal as it relates to install base, but definitely impacts the Wii's perception as a machine for a particular type of games.

The back half of 2008 was a drought and they self-admittedly bumbled Christmas 2008. 2009's only good moves were Wii Sports Resort and their Christmas, with nothing in between either.

SMG did not bomb. It bombed like any other old big IP has in Japan in recent years, if that's what you meant. If not, then you shouldn't be bringing it up as some kind of disease exclusive to Nintendo.

Since when has Nintendo ever followed up a Smash Bros game in the same gen? Does Tatsunoko vs Capcom count? You can't blame them for how so-called hardcore gamers refused to buy games like that and Godhand, Madworld, LKS, Contra 4, SH1-3, and many others that bombed for real. Where was the talk about Sony not doing anything to help sales for some of their games? It seems like if every game on the Wii isn't shoved down everyone's throats by Nintendo, then Nintendo is failing teh hardcore or is slipping. lol If people can buy both HD twins for a few good games, then they can buy the Wii for a few good games, too. No hiding behind the "hardcore games don't sell on Wii" garbage.

I like how you elevate them to this crazy standard where they must churn out major new titles every quarter, every year, nonstop, or else they're failing. I don't expect them to put out as much as quickly after we got most of their big stuff in the beginning. Hell, people are STILL waiting for FF13 to maybe come out this year in Japan. Everybody is slipping this gen. After seeing NSMBWii, SMG2 and Metroid Other M happen, and hearing about a M+ Zelda, I don't see any signs of the apocalypse.

EDIT: Whoops! I somehow mixed up the two MC threads here. Fixed.

 

[[Nintex]]

Goodluck convincing xHardcoreofDutyx to switch over from the whatever HD platform he's on, to one that's anemic in the kind of features he looks for.

Hardcore gamers aren't hard to convince, all it took back in 2004 was a 60 sec. Zelda trailer, Metroid Prime 2, a DS prototype and a shitty Star Fox game and Reggie telling people that they would kick ass and take names and Nintendo 'won' E3. Nintendo announced a number of great games last E3 and they still have quite a large group of developers that haven't shown anything yet like Retro Studios.

We could be looking at Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid: Other M and a new Zelda title for 2010. Not to mention the secondary stuff like Monado(?). The only thing they could improve is the marketing for the core titles but I wouldn't pick Metroid Prime 3 as an example like people tend to do. After all they had the whole TV campaign, anti-Halo viral marketing ("never send a man to do a woman's job!"), demo disks and more for Metroid Prime 2 and that didn't even help the game.

With Metroid: Other M for example they could do a much better job at selling the game and I guess the Team Ninja influence will make it more appealing to a larger crowd of the hardcore fanbase(the Metroid Prime series was the definition of *shrug* niche).

 

[gerg]

I'm confused by the terminology.

Most hardcore gamers will own a Wii and actively buy games for it. Same with 360 and/or PS3. Core gamers play RE5, MGS4, SMG, and may or may not own a Wii, but will most likely own a 360 and/or PS3. Casual gamers play Madden, GTA, and Mario Kart Wii, and may or may not own a Wii, and may or may not own a 360/PS3. And new gamers play Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, etc, and will most likely own a Wii.

Hardcore = interested in gaming to a large degree.

Casual = disinterested in gaming to a large degree.

These terms say nothing, except of that of correlation, about what games one may play.

In 2007, I argued that moving upmarket to draw in the bottommost members of the "core gamer" demographic was a good insurance policy for Nintendo, that would help ensure that even if expanded-market titles dried up the system would remain vibrant (a la the DS) and everyone said it was stupid to suggest Nintendo try to protect their interests instead of sitting on their ass counting their money again.

As I've said, it's a trade-off that may not yet have come to fruition. Why spend lots of money on an insurance plan you may never need?

 

[schuelma]

DQX? Sony's way of doing business with third parties is not the end all be all. Nintendo isn't going to drown third parties in cash. They aren't seeking world domination, nor do they want to win because of moneyhats. They want to succeed because of their software. No moneyhats were needed to make the DS and Wii huge successes. What does that tell you? Call me crazy, but I appreciate a little restraint and standards when looking at a big corporation. I know the reasons why they are like that (exception to the rule and all that) but still.

.

First off, this continued trumpeting of DQ X when its probably 2-3 years away doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.

Second, I'm not suggesting that Nintendo should have been buying RPG's left and right..but I think they could have pretty easily secured mid tier franchises in 2007 when they were selling out all across Japan and they could be supporting the genre internally a hell of a lot more than what they are doing.

 

[[Nintex]]

First off, this continued trumpeting of DQ X when its probably 2-3 years away doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.

Second, I'm not suggesting that Nintendo should have been buying RPG's left and right..but I think they could have pretty easily secured mid tier franchises in 2007 when they were selling out all across Japan and they could be supporting the genre internally a hell of a lot more than what they are doing.

This year alone they got Monster Hunter 3, Tales of Graces, The Crystal Bearers and a bunch of DS titles like Dragon Quest IX. What do you want them to do? They pretty much locked down everything there is besides Final Fantasy XIII. Iwata could go all Yamauchi apeshit and forbid the third party developers he's working with to build RPG's for systems other than DS and Wii but that's not going to happen in todays market.

 

[gerg]

This year alone they got Monster Hunter 3, Tales of Graces, The Crystal Bearers and a bunch of DS titles like Dragon Quest IX. What do you want them to do? They pretty much locked down everything there is besides Final Fantasy XIII. Iwata could go all Yamauchi apeshit and forbid the third party developers he's working with to build RPG's for systems other than DS and Wii but that's not going to happen in todays market.

Don't create a false dichotomy. Nintendo could have easily financed numerous titles for the Wii for third-parties, providing all the incentives that Microsoft does to encourage development for their platforms. That Nintendo's "done all that it could" is as false as saying that they've done nothing at all, literally ignoring the outside world while they counted money on their thrones of gold.

 

[schuelma]

This year alone they got Monster Hunter 3, Tales of Graces, The Crystal Bearers and a bunch of DS titles like Dragon Quest IX. What do you want them to do? They pretty much locked down everything there is besides Final Fantasy XIII. Iwata could go all Yamauchi apeshit and forbid the third party developers he's working with to build RPG's for systems other than DS and Wii but that's not going to happen in todays market.

Tri is not an RPG, and it doesn't look like Crystal Bearers is either.

I'm thinking stuff from Atlus and other smaller developers.

 

[Parl]

Hardcore = interested in gaming to a large degree.

Casual = disinterested in gaming to a large degree.

These terms say nothing, except of that of correlation, about what games one may play.

Though that wouldn't correlate with "hardcore games", because while there aren't all that many very dedicated gamers, they tend to have wide ranging tastes, so if Wii Sports is a "casual game" because it's played by gamers who play infrequently or for short periods, then most games are hardcore games. Also, many people at least used to play Wii Sports more than an actual casual gamer who would maybe play a bit of Madden or whatever a few hours per week - yet the gamer playing Wii Sports would be more likely labelled as casual.

I would say that "disinterested in gaming to a large degree" would be more likely a non-gamer. Casual would be "not that interested", but I don't think there's a strong enough correlation between the frequency and duration a gamer plays, and the games they play, to categorise games as casual or hardcore. Also, a limited taste in games, like some only playing sports games, or some only playing MMOs, or some only playing RPGs, and some only playing Wii Sports, doesn't make them more or less casual a gamer. There were those that played Wii Sports and Mario Kart Wii, or Brain Training and whatever other so-called "casual games" that appeared fairly recently, and even the ones who played often would be considered much more casual than those who only play RPGs. I find much of this terminology quite arrogant in some instances.

 

[gerg]

Though that wouldn't correlate with "hardcore games", because while there aren't all that many very dedicated gamers, they tend to have wide ranging tastes, so if Wii Sports is a "casual game" because it's played by gamers who play infrequently or for short periods, then most games are hardcore games. Also, many people at least used to play Wii Sports more than an actual casual gamer who would maybe play a bit of Madden or whatever a few hours per week - yet the gamer playing Wii Sports would be more likely labelled as casual.

Solution to the "hardcore v. casual game" dilemma? Hardcore and casual games don't exist (again, outside of correlation)!

I would say that "disinterested in gaming to a large degree" would be more likely a non-gamer. Casual would be "not that interested",

Of course there's a scale, which gets more and more vague as you move away from the poles. "Disinterested in gaming to a large degree" is simply a more verbose and specified way of saying "not that interested in gaming".

but I don't think there's a strong enough correlation between the frequency and duration a gamer plays, and the games they play, to categorise games as casual or hardcore.

Did I ever say there was?

Because hardcore gamers have traditionally been 18-35 males, the types of games they play have been branded hardcore games, irrespective of their success. However, this distinction is incorrect.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

Don't create a false dichotomy. Nintendo could have easily financed numerous titles for the Wii for third-parties, providing all the incentives that Microsoft does to encourage development for their platforms. That Nintendo's "done all that it could" is as false as saying that they've done nothing at all, literally ignoring the outside world while they counted money on their thrones of gold.

Again, Nintendo is not Sony or MS. There's only so much they could do if they did shower third parties in cash. Certain third parties would want Nintendo to fund their entire projects, and I'm not talking about little indie devs either.

Tri is not an RPG, and it doesn't look like Crystal Bearers is either.

I'm thinking stuff from Atlus and other smaller developers.

CC used to be more of an RPG, and Atlus isn't exactly knocking down any HD doors, either. Persona is moving to the PSP and SMT: SJ is on the DS with Devil Survivor. Nintendo does have the most RPGs right now...they're just mostly on the DS.

 

[schuelma]

CC used to be more of an RPG, and Atlus isn't exactly knocking down any HD doors, either. Persona is moving to the PSP and SMT: SJ is on the DS with Devil Survivor. Nintendo does have the most RPGs right now...they're just mostly on the DS.

I'm pretty sure Atlus has moved to HD development.

 

[gerg]

Again, Nintendo is not Sony or MS. There's only so much they could do if they did shower third parties in cash. Certain third parties would want Nintendo to fund their entire projects, and I'm not talking about little indie devs either.

charlequin's a better man to talk to about this than I am, but helping third-parties doesn't begin and end with paying for their entire development. Unfortunately, I can't regurgitate many of the things he's told me at will, but one thing that Nintendo could do is help to alleviate advertising costs by advertising third-parties' games themselves.

Furthermore, the "Nintendo is strapped for cash" argument seems strangely ironic when Nintendo is making more money in a couple of years than Sony has in an entire decade from the gaming industry. Nintendo can certainly afford the expenses.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

I'm pretty sure Atlus has moved to HD development.

I'm pretty sure that's still just a rumor...an old rumor from a couple of years ago. And putting a mainline SMT on the DS and Persona on the PSP say otherwise. Atlus can't afford to indulge anyone's HD fantasies unless Sony or MS(lol) foots the bill. If they did manage to make an HD SMT it would be low budget and be bashed or ignored outside Japan for its "bad" graphics. Animating demons and personas in HD will cost a lot of money. Not everything has to be HD, you know. One day/year they'll do it.

charlequin's a better man to talk to about this than I am, but helping third-parties doesn't begin and end with paying for their entire development. Unfortunately, I can't regurgitate many of the things he's told me at will, but one thing that Nintendo could do is help to alleviate advertising costs by advertising third-parties' games themselves.

Furthermore, the "Nintendo is strapped for cash" argument seems strangely ironic when Nintendo is making more money in a couple of years than Sony has in an entire decade from the gaming industry. Nintendo can certainly afford the expenses.

I know his views already. I was referring to certain third parties, not all. Look at how much MS had to pay to get GTA4 on the 360? That kind of cash was enough to cover the costs of development and then some. If that's how far Nintendo has to go, they won't do it. We can say they should, but they won't. And saying they should pay for advertising for all third parties is ridiculous. Not even Sony did that, and they made it the popular thing to do somehow. Moneyhats have only made a mess of things. Good for third parties that don't want to take risks or want to make stuff they know will fail, but don't care, or for stuff they know will succeed, but want to have someone else foot the bill. There are bad games that get tons of advertising, but is that supposed to be a good thing?

Who said Nintendo was strapped for cash? It's not like they're sitting on it all. I'd rather they use the money to fund their own first/second party stuff, than try to drag (with bags of money) some big third party over to make a port that would cost Nintendo enough that they might as well make it themselves.

I guess this just boils down to how you want them to run things. You want them to copy Sony. I don't. They don't. Although they have made some small compromises. I don't see "the hardcore" meeting them halfway. Hell, Nintendo would have to moneyhat them to do that. lol

 

[SSJ1Goku]

*Also, I KNOW their are a shitload of PS2 owners just waiting for the right console to jump to. I just know it. My gut tells me that while many have moved to the 360, many many more would LOVE to move to the PS3.

My oldest bro is in the room right this min. playing Madden 07, he was talking just last night about buying a Slim PS3

 

[charlequin]

charlequin's a better man to talk to about this than I am, but helping third-parties doesn't begin and end with paying for their entire development. Unfortunately, I can't regurgitate many of the things he's told me at will, but one thing that Nintendo could do is help to alleviate advertising costs by advertising third-parties' games themselves.

The lowest-hanging fruit (in terms of being relatively inexpensive but having significant benefits in the long run) is always improving the development relationship itself, something that Microsoft has excelled at this generation -- straightforward and comprehensible dev environment, lots of attention from people at the hardware company, gifted or loaned devkits, good and well-documented libraries, etc.

After that, there's stuff like cross-marketing, reduced and/or waived-below-a-set-sales-level licensing fees, first-party publishing arrangements, IP loanouts (like when Nintendo paid Capcom to develop Zelda games for them) in exchange for exclusivity on other titles, and other tricks that can be used to gather support.

I'm pretty sure that's still just a rumor...an old rumor from a couple of years ago.

Nope. Atlus was advertising for some relatively extensive 360 and PS3 development positions about a year ago, and then shortly after that announced that they had two 360 titles in development in Famitsu Xbox.

I guess this just boils down to how you want them to run things. You want them to copy Sony.

Well, for one, I think Microsoft is a better example than Sony at the moment. But also, not really: that's just a false equivalency, of the sort that are often used to justify inertia. I don't think trying to be Microsoft, or beat them exactly at their own game, would have been a productive strategy for Nintendo. But instead, they should have been thinking at how they could spend money to get their own kind of exclusives, using their own core competencies to do so, instead of ignoring third-parties altogether out of some kind of illogical once-bitten-twice-shy reticence.

 

[Soundwave2000]

Nintendo should've just gone to Square-Enix and set up an agreement to make certain games for the Wii back in 2007.

I'm talking stuff that would actually sell like a Nintendo-Square-Enix RPG, DQ Remakes on Wii (which probably are coming, but its taken too long), FF Remakes on Wii, etc. Hell just set up a joint studio perhaps.

Then those games would sell, then other third parties would have no choice but to come on board in a more serious way.

That would've been a better strategy even than the one MS uses where they just fund or seem to help with a slew of third party projects from various companies ... but looking at the 360 in Japan, it really has done dick all.

Nintendo had leverage in 2007 after the successful Wii launch and DS domination to do something like that for Japan anyway.

 

[schuelma]

Nintendo should've just gone to Square-Enix and set up an agreement to make certain games for the Wii back in 2007.
.

I do think that an absolutely huge difference between the DS and Wii was relatively early, major support which led to support from other 3rd parties. SE hasn't done much on Wii and I'm not convinced that Crystal Bearers is going to do much either.

 

[Soundwave2000]

I do think that an absolutely huge difference between the DS and Wii was relatively early, major support which led to support from other 3rd parties. SE hasn't done much on Wii and I'm not convinced that Crystal Bearers is going to do much either.

Oh it would've been a big difference in my mind.

Just imagine the difference if last winter they had Final Fantasy VI Remake or something and this year had say a Dragon Quest VII Remake + Nintendo-Square-Enix crossover RPG.

If they had set up an agreement early on in 2007, those types of releases could have been possible. The DS has enough DQ/FF remakes, the Wii could damn well have used some of those these past two years.

 

[cvxfreak]

Crystal Bearers is out just before FFXIII, so I doubt it'll do much either. Can't imagine someone wanting to buy a Wii for that over a PS3 with FFXIII.

 

[schuelma]

Crystal Bearers is out just before FFXIII, so I doubt it'll do much either. Can't imagine someone wanting to buy a Wii for that over a PS3 with FFXIII.

Oh its definitely not going to be any sort of hardware mover- I'm doubting that it will do decent numbers, period.

 

[cvxfreak]

Oh its definitely not going to be any sort of hardware mover- I'm doubting that it will do decent numbers, period.

I think it should do at least 200K, but I think SE made a huge mistake in not making a more traditional RPG with the FF name instead. This game took 3 years+ to make too, which is even more surprising.

 

[schuelma]

I think it should do at least 200K, but I think SE made a huge mistake in not making a more traditional RPG with the FF name instead. This game took 3 years+ to make too, which is even more surprising.

Agreed. As of now, I'm not sure what audience its supposed to appeal to.

 

[onipex]

While I agree with your sentiment, I would like to state that attracting the "hardcore" anything isn't the problem. The problem is in attracting a demographic, composed (as with any demographic) largely of casual gamers, but with distinct tastes. In this case, what would probably be most accurate would be to say that Nintendo needs to attract 18-35 male casual gamers (in Japan).

As I said before, it depends. Concern over Nintendo's ability to compete against a successful PS3 only exists because of their failure to meet their own goals. The main problem arises when both of these situations come to fruition at the same time, which may or may not be happening. If it is an "either/or" situation, I imagine that concern is much less pronounced.
.

If The PS3 has a great fall back to 15-10k before FF comes out then I don't think Nintendo will worry much. I don't see it staying that hugh without software to carry it.

I don't think that Wii Fit Plus will cause a boost in momentum for the Wii, at all.

Time will tell.

I never said otherwise. However, for Nintendo's own sake NSMB has to be bloody good sales-wise.

This really wasn't directed towards you, but I agree with you on this point.

First, I would make the same point I made to kinggroin above.

Secondly, I imagine that releasing a constant stream of, say, RPGs - be they big IPs or otherwise - would have done a lot to bolster the Wii's chances of success with this crowd.

The games I listed will work great too.

 

[Jonnyram]

Just imagine the difference if last winter they had Final Fantasy VI Remake or something and this year had say a Dragon Quest VII Remake + Nintendo-Square-Enix crossover RPG.

Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Population: one.

 

[ethelred]

Oh, look, Soundwave is back from the dead. And he still doesn't get it. Over and over again.

I'm thinking stuff from Atlus and other smaller developers.

Microsoft tried that with Atlus last gen. They took the cash money, provided a cheap outsourced heap, and plugged said cash money into Nocturne! :lol

If they had set up an agreement early on in 2007, those types of releases could have been possible. The DS has enough DQ/FF remakes, the Wii could damn well have used some of those these past two years.

The DS has enough of them, so Square should've given them to the Wii instead! Right. This isn't some kind of egalitarian commie paradise where Square's job is to make sure every Nintendo system out there is getting the right balance of its precious love and tenderness.

I keep hearing nonsense like this. The Wii deserves DQ/FF remakes. The DS has too many, so they should go to the Wii now (yeah, if it has too many, let's see how DQ6 sells). There's so much of a sense of entitlement held by some Wii fans as to what the system deserves. Honestly, you guys should be happy if by 2013 Yuji Horii doesn't decide that the Wii's gone the way of the Saturn and ups and moves DQ10 to a different platform.

 

[LINK.AGE76]

Monolith should of done a few rpgs by now for the Wii. I don't know why they are doing a lot of DS games. Monado seems way early and if the footage we saw it suppose to be well into production then wtf is that?

 

[LINK.AGE76]

Oh, look, Soundwave is back from the dead. And he still doesn't get it. Over and over again.



Microsoft tried that with Atlus last gen. They took the cash money, provided a cheap outsourced heap, and plugged said cash money into Nocturne! :lol



The DS has enough of them, so Square should've given them to the Wii instead! Right. This isn't some kind of egalitarian commie paradise where Square's job is to make sure every Nintendo system out there is getting the right balance of its precious love and tenderness.

I have a feeling we see DQ7r on Wii and an enhanced port of DQ8 before DQ10 comes out.

 

[Jonnyram]

I have a feeling we see DQ7r on Wii and an enhanced port of DQ8 before DQ10 comes out.

Population: two.

 

[LINK.AGE76]

Population: two.

You seriously wouldn't think they would do that? Its Square after all where a lot of their games are remakes. It would be a good idea, they have 4,5 and now 6 being remade. 7r would help the sales on the Wii and the fan base will grow.

 

[Linkup]

That DLC seems to working for DQ9.

 

[AranhaHunter]

You seriously wouldn't think they would do that? Its Square after all where a lot of their games are remakes. It would be a good idea, they have 4,5 and now 6 being remade. 7r would help the sales on the Wii and the fan base will grow.

I personally think DQVII will either be on PSN (simple iso dump on PSOne classics store and will sell shitloads) or it'll go on DS (I take it the DS can do PSOne graphics just fine).

 

[Soundwave2000]

Population: two.

I'm not really even sure I understand what your argument is.

That a DQ Remake isn't technically feasible on the Wii, or that it wouldn't sell?

There's no reason why those games shouldn't have been on the Wii if Nintendo and Square-Enix had done better planning two years ago.

 

[kinggroin]

Hardcore gamers aren't hard to convince, all it took back in 2004 was a 60 sec. Zelda trailer, Metroid Prime 2, a DS prototype and a shitty Star Fox game and Reggie telling people that they would kick ass and take names and Nintendo 'won' E3. Nintendo announced a number of great games last E3 and they still have quite a large group of developers that haven't shown anything yet like Retro Studios.

We could be looking at Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid: Other M and a new Zelda title for 2010. Not to mention the secondary stuff like Monado(?). The only thing they could improve is the marketing for the core titles but I wouldn't pick Metroid Prime 3 as an example like people tend to do. After all they had the whole TV campaign, anti-Halo viral marketing ("never send a man to do a woman's job!"), demo disks and more for Metroid Prime 2 and that didn't even help the game.

With Metroid: Other M for example they could do a much better job at selling the game and I guess the Team Ninja influence will make it more appealing to a larger crowd of the hardcore fanbase(the Metroid Prime series was the definition of *shrug* niche).

Not for nothing, but I don't see these core titles appealing to that many more folks than the ones already supporting the Wii and it's current core titles. The same folks who owned a gamecube last gen and moved to this paltform expecting the same Nintendo 1st party support.

 

[HK-47]

I'd also add that Nintendo has been very disappointing with their support for the peripherals. Wii Fit is an absolute smash and we see nothing in Japan until two years later with a Wii Fit sequel.

WSR is supported by..what other Motion+ games exactly? Span Smasher?

Yeah, what happened to those games we thought they were holding back for WSR? It just makes the drought look worse. At least that was a decent reason, well if it had actually been true.

 

[HK-47]

Hardcore gamers aren't hard to convince, all it took back in 2004 was a 60 sec. Zelda trailer, Metroid Prime 2, a DS prototype and a shitty Star Fox game and Reggie telling people that they would kick ass and take names and Nintendo 'won' E3. Nintendo announced a number of great games last E3 and they still have quite a large group of developers that haven't shown anything yet like Retro Studios.

We could be looking at Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid: Other M and a new Zelda title for 2010. Not to mention the secondary stuff like Monado(?). The only thing they could improve is the marketing for the core titles but I wouldn't pick Metroid Prime 3 as an example like people tend to do. After all they had the whole TV campaign, anti-Halo viral marketing ("never send a man to do a woman's job!"), demo disks and more for Metroid Prime 2 and that didn't even help the game.

With Metroid: Other M for example they could do a much better job at selling the game and I guess the Team Ninja influence will make it more appealing to a larger crowd of the hardcore fanbase(the Metroid Prime series was the definition of *shrug* niche).

Unless you are talking about Japan, Metroid Prime was never niche. The first game is the best selling game in the series and the other two are million sellers. Thats near the opposite end of the spectrum from niche.

 

[markatisu]

Yeah, what happened to those games we thought they were holding back for WSR? It just makes the drought look worse. At least that was a decent reason, well if it had actually been true.

WSR has been out for a little under 3 months worldwide, I would expect any games they had for M+ will come next Spring/Summer and be revealed this Oct.

 

[donny2112]

Population: two.

Since SFC, what has Enix done? Put remakes of previous DQ games on a system getting the main DQ. I wouldn't expect a DQVIII straight port (what would be the point?), but I do expect a DQVIIr from Enix unless they move DQX off the Wii and back to DSx. Why would you think that with Wii getting DQX that Enix wouldn't put any remakes on the system, too?

 

[rpmurphy]

Population: two.

I believe this is a statement of agreement. :lol