ab.aeterno
Member
Wait, is voice chat at a system-level or on a game-by-game basis?It has integrated user ID. It doesn't have friend codes. It has voice chat.
Get your information up to date before you complain
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo lowers forecast from ¥55B profit to ¥25B loss [3DS 18M->13.5; WiiU 9M->2.8M]
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
gigantor21
Member
This, especially in a case as horrible as Nintendo's. This was so terrible that I suspect it would've had the same effect no matter when it was announced. Iwata's history of "please understand" and the lack of detail in his calls for change didn't make the PR all that convincing either.
We're not going to have a real sense of what they'll do differently until the final results come out. And even then, I'm not expecting much in the short term.
depends on what you call voice chat I suppose.
There's a dedicated app that does it.
I don't have any online mp enabled game so I don't know how the voice chat works in that case....Or there's Trine 2 and in that case it's in.
As far as I know, no. Not with any kind of accuracy, anyway since we don't have any idea of what the actual product mix is. What we do know is that it's a whole lot of inventory, and they had a relatively weak quarter, so they should still have a whole lot of inventory at the end of the current quarter.
The danger is having lots of inventory is that you can be forced to mark it down if you can't move it before you have to cut the price. Microsoft ate a billion dollars on unsold Surface inventory earlier this year. It ties up cash, too, but Nintendo has plenty, so that's less of a worry.
They don't have to be perfect substitutes. They just have to be 'good enough' to satisfy most people's gaming needs. Just as phone cameras aren't perfect substitutes for a standalone quality camera but are still good enough for most people.
The phrase 'learning period' is really patronising, whether you intend it to be or not. Most people don't place much importance on video games. For most they're a fun distraction not a dedicated hobby. There are also quality games on smart phones.
And ultimately, what you describe is capitalism in action. Capitalism isn't a moral force but is profit driven. If there is more money to be made on smart phone games than on dedicated handheld gaming devices, then that's where companies will put their efforts. We can hope that there remains enough of a niche market for dedicated handhelds that the product is still worth producing. The problem is that Nintendo are a multinational corporation worth billions of dollars. They're not particularly interested in niche markets and aim for broad appeal. We'll just have to wait and see.
I have a question I want to ask of everyone while the future of the Wii U is so uncertain. Maybe it's been asked in another thread; I'm not sure. But I want to know what everyone thinks.
Is Zelda Wii U even going to happen at this point? It probably wouldn't come out until mid-2015, by which time it's doubtful that most major chains will even be carrying the Wii U anymore, unless it's on clearance or something. It seems like releasing Zelda that late would just be sending it out to die. Even now, we're at the point where the Wii U will be getting about one game per month. That's barely even hyberbole; the Wii U has about a dozen retail games scheduled for it this year, most of them from Nintendo. What is the financial sense of anyone releasing game in such an anemic environment, especially a big-budget tentpole game like Zelda? It would make a lot more sense for Nintendo to shift development on that game to whatever their next platform is, rather than see it through to near-guaranteed financial failure.
I would like to see an HD Zelda, but the Wii U situation has become so dire that it seems like it'll be too late by the time it comes out to be financially feasible. Even if it released right now, it would still be too late.
Is Zelda Wii U even going to happen at this point? It probably wouldn't come out until mid-2015, by which time it's doubtful that most major chains will even be carrying the Wii U anymore, unless it's on clearance or something. It seems like releasing Zelda that late would just be sending it out to die. Even now, we're at the point where the Wii U will be getting about one game per month. That's barely even hyberbole; the Wii U has about a dozen retail games scheduled for it this year, most of them from Nintendo. What is the financial sense of anyone releasing game in such an anemic environment, especially a big-budget tentpole game like Zelda? It would make a lot more sense for Nintendo to shift development on that game to whatever their next platform is, rather than see it through to near-guaranteed financial failure.
I would like to see an HD Zelda, but the Wii U situation has become so dire that it seems like it'll be too late by the time it comes out to be financially feasible. Even if it released right now, it would still be too late.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Well, Twilight Princess was released across two platforms. Who's to say it couldn't happen again?
evilromero
Member
Is it worth Nintendo's resources to even continue developing a version for the Wii U though?
No. They should cancel all Wii U games immediately and move them to the next thing, whatever that is.
Father_Brain
Banned
Not the first time I've said this, but that's a very, very good question, and NCL is being pretty irresponsible as a business if they aren't at least seriously reevaluating what to do with the project and other Wii U titles that aren't going to be out by early 2015. Especially given that it might well be the highest-budgeted title EAD has developed to date, and that I think mid-2015 is overly optimistic by a few months.
they should, but they really can't. With what they have currently announced/in production, they could probably go until 2015 or early 2016. But we've pretty much gone over why releasing a new console mid cycle (2016, which would be 2+ years before the competition, possibly?) is a horrible idea. It looks like they're going to have to grind it out until 2017, at least.
I can't imagine how painful it is for some of these devs to have to start development on a game for a console that is destined to fail. I'm guessing Retro and EAD Tokyo will be starting work on a second Wii U game soon.
They really shouldn't, and they can't.
They should and they can. There is no turnaround coming for the Wii U. It's a failure. Cut your losses and get to work on the next thing. You don't throw good money after bad.
Besides, the next thing(which should be a handheld or hybrid) needs a stellar launch lineup. Ideally the best launch lineup we've ever seen. For that to have a chance, they need every resource available.
It's either going to be completely gutted and rushed to market - like Wind Waker.
Or it's going to be delayed multiple times, using increasingly more bullshit excuses each time, until it can be simultaneously launched across multiple platforms - like Twilight Princess.
But, either way, I think it's highly unlikely that we're getting an ambitious, big-budget Zelda built from the ground-up exclusively for Wii U. Such a game would only be sent out to die, and Nintendo knows it at this point.
Father_Brain
Banned
Serious question: While most/all of Nintendo's 2014 Wii U lineup is probably far enough along in development to qualify as a sunk cost, is there a good business argument (i.e. not "their loyal fans will never forgive them for killing Wii U early") for NCL continuing to release retail Wii U software beyond the next fiscal year to certain commercial failure, rather than simply retreating from the console software market for a few years until their next platform(s) is/are ready?
Wii U may be dying, but you suggest Nintendo cancels everything in development and leaves the system out there with no support for the next couple of years. They won't and can't do that.
No, but it'll be worse in terms of consumer trust if they ditch vital software support for a system already owned by 4m ninty fans. For the biggest budget titles coming out laterr in wii u's life like zelda u, metroid,
F Zero...?
michaelius
Banned
Yes it is.
If they want to release another console then they must release all currently annouced games for Wii U to protect whatever they have left of consumer trust.
Nobody would buy their next system if they might drop it after a year - again. Nintendo has no choice but to ride it out and support the Wii U until at least 2015 or 2016.
Seriously. That's like a page right out of the Sega hardware playbook.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I feel like 2016 is the safest bet. 2015 is pushing it too close (I mean, that's next year!) but may be possible/necessary depending on retailer pressure, and 2017 is waiting too long because the system will probably be completely dead by then regardless.
Of course they would. Address the issues you have and come back with a great product, and people will be there.
The failure of the Virtual Boy didn't cause their next released system to fail, neither will this. Shit happens.
No, they need to kill it and ride out the 3DS until the next system is ready.
Well if I were a developer, that wouldn't really bother me. As long as I'm getting paid and getting to ply my trade then how many it sells isnt really my focus. It's not like no one is going to see these games or they won't be eligible to receive critical acclaim etc. Maybe thats the artsy twat in me though
Publishers on the other hand...
Wickerbasket
Member
To keep their stock price up using the hopes of overly optimistic investors that believe the Wii U will rise like a phoenix from it's own ashes.
If they announce the Wii U completely dead I'd imagine their stocks would take an even bigger hit.
It might be best for their long term health though.
Virtual Boy didn't sell at all. Wii U already sold a few million systems and got a lot more attention. Dropping it now would be completely stupid. Not to mention developing a new system takes years. They'd lose most retail presence for at least two years, they'd lose mind share, and all money already spent on Wii U titles currently in development would be in Nirvana for years with no RoI whatsoever.
I think people need to accept the fact that Nintendo's consumer trust is already somewhat in the toilet. The proof is in the sales (not that many consumers to piss off, to be honest). They also did a number to it when they cut the 3DS price down by a third within its first 6 months, and that was on a much more success platform with more consumers to piss off.
Basically, my point is Nintendo has to make SOME drastic moves at this point, and they can't be concerned about pissing off their loyal fans, because they'll do nothing but stay in the same place. The sales of the Wii U are beyond awful, and I don't think they're going to hold out the 3-5 years until the die-hard fans who have already bought in deep it appropriate to move on. The die-hard fans aren't enough to keep this ship afloat.
Basically, my point is Nintendo has to make SOME drastic moves at this point, and they can't be concerned about pissing off their loyal fans, because they'll do nothing but stay in the same place. The sales of the Wii U are beyond awful, and I don't think they're going to hold out the 3-5 years until the die-hard fans who have already bought in deep it appropriate to move on. The die-hard fans aren't enough to keep this ship afloat.
This new system would need to be ready for holiday 2015, and It should be a handheld or hybrid anyway. They could have it done in time if they transition over existing Wii U projects.
I wouldn't release another traditional console. Maybe a $99 Ouya style box, but otherwise, they should kiss consoles goodbye.
Aquamarine
Member
I agree. And not only the Virtual Boy, but Nintendo released two handhelds (Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance) with incredibly short, three-year lifespans until their successor was released.
Hardcore Nintendo fans had no problem with the Nintendo DS releasing in 2004 despite the Game Boy Advance releasing in 2001, so I don't see why the successor to the Wii U can't be released in 2015.
As I said earlier, if I was in a management position at Nintendo I'd only continue to support Wii U with the tentpole projects announced for the system (Zelda U, Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros. U, and the other projects Nintendo has in development).
Nothing major would get greenlit at this point.
Due to Nintendo's excessive inventory of manufactured Wii U consoles, I would halt production for the time being. In territories where Wii U has flatlined (the UK / Australia for example) I would stop paying retailers to keep Wii U on the shelf and retreat from physical retail at those markets. At the end of the day, those markets are just losing money.
In markets with at least a glimmer of promise (France, USA, Japan), I would release the tentpole projects to those territories.
Essentially, the goal is to squeeze whatever life Wii U has out of it before discarding it and moving on.
To that end, I would stay far away from an official Dreamcast-esque discontinuation. Like Nintendo did with the Virtual Boy back in 1996, I would continue to pledge support for the system but wind down 1st-party support through early 2015 before silently discontinuing it.
Who knows? In 2015 Nintendo could even invest in some small, indie-style first party projects like Pushmo on the Wii U to sustain the illusion that Wii U is still being supported.
So all of that expansion Nintendo EAD has undergone? I would invest their energies towards what's coming next, not to try and prop up a dead console.
Then your proposal makes even less sense, because their next handheld couldn't run the Wii U games currently in development in the first place. So you're suggesting completely throwing away years of work without any RoI whatsoever over releasing something that might sell a million copies?
As dead as the Wii U might seem, there are a couple million out there and it will sell a few million more. Not enough for Mario Kart Wii style success stories, but enough to sell a million copies of a game or two and actually make some money. And some money is better than no money.
That being said, as I stated multiple times, I expect a new platform (encompassing both handheld and console, but no hybrid hardware) by late 2015, but this platform will only officially replace Wii U and 3DS when it's actually successful. And it is probably where most internal development resources will be focused on soon (if they aren't already), with some games moved over from Wii U and 3DS and some getting a simultaneous release on both.
There is (more or less) a way to split the baby on this:
Release their new system as a portable-ish, say a 6-inch 4:3 screen with gamepad controls on the side. If they put relatively standard 2015 tablet guts in there, they should have no problem cross-porting between WiiU and Fusion, so WiiU owners get a steady stream of games, and if Nintendo is smart about it, they'd implement cross-buy so when people upgrade from their 3DS to the Fusion, they may have a couple games they've bought already for their WiiU that they can now play on the go.
Release their new system as a portable-ish, say a 6-inch 4:3 screen with gamepad controls on the side. If they put relatively standard 2015 tablet guts in there, they should have no problem cross-porting between WiiU and Fusion, so WiiU owners get a steady stream of games, and if Nintendo is smart about it, they'd implement cross-buy so when people upgrade from their 3DS to the Fusion, they may have a couple games they've bought already for their WiiU that they can now play on the go.
Actually the GBA SP soured me on Nintendo handhelds for good. Hardly played on it, was redundant a year later. The DS was doing pretty poorly in the beginning IIRC, it wasn't until the redesign and casual games that it took off. It was their first runaway non-gamer success. Both my mother in law and sister in law bought one, and that was the full extent of their gaming experience ever.
A handheld targeting late 2015 could be powerful enough to run Wii U level software.
As for ROI, they need to think long term. They're losing money on the Wii U now. They can't sell enough hardware to sell meaningful amounts of software, and they are losing money selling the hardware they do sell. This isn't a tenable situation.
Use the product that is actually making money(The 3DS) to get you through and focus on the future.
2spooky4me
Member
I like these ideas. Seems like the likely next step for Nintendo. The only issue would be the timing of when they announce their next platform. 2016-2017 is a very awkward time to release the Wii U's successor, although I guess it would still be feasible if the launch lineup is strong enough.
Personally I'm getting a bit of hope that the Wii U is going to do a slight turnaround and approach gamecube numbers. The Wii U crowd is tiny, but it's getting increasingly vocal (and with good reason if you look at the games and the comparative uniqueness of the system). Nintendo was called the best publisher of the year on many outlets, as well as in the GAF GOTY list, with the Wii U I think even having the most exclusives in the top 20. Other games sites also seem to get a vocal minority in favor of the U.
They're not going to recuperate costs, but I think they also shouldn't kill it off until they have a successor ready.
They're not going to recuperate costs, but I think they also shouldn't kill it off until they have a successor ready.
Not a cheap Nintendo designed handheld, and especially not without a lot of work.
They managed to sell a million copies of 3D World on that dead system. That's $50,000,000 in revenue. Even if the system will never be a success, it still has a chance to break even while they're working on their next thing. Which, again, will probably surface within the next 18 to 24 months.
Would like to see this hybrid device so many of you are suggesting so long as it was below $250.
I'd also really like to see them consolidate their development efforts to one device so there are no more dry spells early or late in a Nintendo console's life cycle. They can't afford the time to build momentum over months when MS and Sony are delivering big games out of the gate.
That may get them through the next 10 years, but they really should be figuring out a way to bring their games to any device through a service. MS, Sony, Valve, Amazon, etc. will have figured it out by then.
I'd also really like to see them consolidate their development efforts to one device so there are no more dry spells early or late in a Nintendo console's life cycle. They can't afford the time to build momentum over months when MS and Sony are delivering big games out of the gate.
That may get them through the next 10 years, but they really should be figuring out a way to bring their games to any device through a service. MS, Sony, Valve, Amazon, etc. will have figured it out by then.
Neff
Member
Zelda U is exactly the kind of game Nintendo needs to jumpstart Wii U, and they need to jumpstart it. It's absolutely going to happen. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see it released this year.
Nintendo would need a damn miracle to hit Gamecube numbers at this point, and a vocal fanbase is not going to be what does it for them. Nintendo has ALWAYS had a very vocal fanbase, and that didn't stop their numbers dropping from SNES to Gamecube.
Honestly, this "one game can change anything" hoping for a miracle BS is exactly what got Nintendo into the position they're in now. It's time for planning and fast action. "Wait and see" is done.
Zelda Skyward Sword is the lowest selling 3D console Zelda, and on a 100+ million selling platform. The Zelda franchise has long-since lost its power to jumpstart Nintendo consoles.
Natureboy99
Banned
What you just described already exists. Its called PlayStation Vita. If Nintendo makes something similar to vita, why will it do any better? The market has spoken that for high end portables people want more than just games.
Fourth Storm
Member
I think you're making alot of sense when talking about what projects to greenlight for Wii U. A new Metroid would do little for Wii U in late 2015 to early 2016. Granting that Retro is working on one atm (seems to be hinted at), it might make more sense to launch that on a successor at this point. Same with EAD Tokyo Group 2. They should be preparing right now to release a polished 3D Mario game for the launch of Nintendo's next home console.
There won't be a hybrid device. Too expensive. A hybrid platform makes a lot more sense. That way, Nintendo gets all the benefits of a hybrid device (develop once, deploy everywhere), they can sell more hardware (because you need two devices to play your games on the go and at home), and the individual hardware would be cheaper (handheld doesn't need to support HD resolutions and HDMI out, console doesn't need a screen).
I seriously can't see how fucking the fans by not releasing games could help Nintendo. I'm sure people who have paid $300 for a Wii U and see how not even Nintendo makes games for it would be excited for the next console. Paying $300 (or even more) for a console with just a year of games support.
Randolph Freelander
Member
If you think those articles have any impact on the market, then surely you would have to agree that the more recent articles calling the Wii U a failure with analysts openly calling for it to be discontinued would have even more impact. The Wii U is presently toxic.
Neff
Member
It sold 3.7m, which is good for any game, let alone a system that all but the most devout users had abandoned by November 2011. It's also arguable that Wii's chance to be 'jumpstarted' had long since passed by then. The first HD Zelda (Wind Waker port notwithstanding) should be a bigger deal. I don't expect it to beat those sales unless the game is truly staggeringly good, but I do expect it to draw major media and consumer attention to the system, something there hasn't been a great deal of until 3D World came along.
I didn't say it would reach even gamecube numbers though, I said it would approach them, like LTD 18 million maybe.
Since the one before that you mean?
Zelda should have been there to actually kickstart the console, it's the only major franchise that has considerable pull in the west. When they release it in 2015 it will be too late anyway.
shinra-bansho
Member
The few million people who have bought the Wii U aren't going to be the key to future success in the home console market. Prolonging the Wii U's demise to placate them isn't sound.
Also, regarding discontinuation; I don't think anyone is suggesting Nintendo go up on a podium and announce that they're moving some current projects to the next system, canning any that aren't worthwhile to move, halting production of the Wii U indefinitely and/or permanently and no longer greenlighting any software for it.
But it's what they should be doing behind the scenes if they're planning to launch a new system sooner rather than later, and they should be.
Also, regarding discontinuation; I don't think anyone is suggesting Nintendo go up on a podium and announce that they're moving some current projects to the next system, canning any that aren't worthwhile to move, halting production of the Wii U indefinitely and/or permanently and no longer greenlighting any software for it.
But it's what they should be doing behind the scenes if they're planning to launch a new system sooner rather than later, and they should be.
For all the praise it garnered, 3D World sold about 570K and the Wii U still ended up sub-GCN for December in the US. Zelda, a weaker brand, isn't jumpstarting anything.
At this point, Nintendo has to go into survival mode.
Bankrolling major projects just to be sent to die on the Wii U doesn't make much financial sense.
It's basically what they did with Gamecube. Relied on major partnerships with 3rd parties and dramatically cut back on large scale games that weren't already far along in development. Although I expect a more dramatic cut-back for the Wii U, seeing as it's doing a lot worse than the Gamecube was, and is actually coinciding with the company's first major losses.
Firing Iwata would only help if it actually changed something. So the question is not whether to fire Iwata, but what is it that should change?